Literature DB >> 34762966

Variation in the receipt of human papilloma virus co-testing for cervical screening: Individual, provider, facility and healthcare system characteristics.

Jennifer S Haas1, David Cheng2, Liyang Yu3, Steven J Atlas3, Cheryl Clark4, Sarah Feldman5, Michelle I Silver6, Aruna Kamineni7, Jessica Chubak7, Gaia Pocobelli7, Jasmin A Tiro8, Sarah C Kobrin9.   

Abstract

Since 2012, cervical cancer screening guidelines allow for choice of screening test for women age 30-65 years (i.e., Pap every 3 years or Pap with human papillomavirus co-testing every 5 years). Intended to give patients and providers options, this flexibility reflects a trend in the growing complexity of screening guidelines. Our objective was to characterize variation in cervical screening at the individual, provider, clinic/facility, and healthcare system levels. The analysis included 296,924 individuals receiving screening from 3626 providers at 136 clinics/facilities in three healthcare systems, 2010 to 2017. Main outcome was receipt of co-testing vs. Pap alone. Co-testing was more common in one healthcare system before the 2012 guidelines (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of co-testing at the other systems relative to this system 0.00 and 0.50) but was increasingly implemented over time in a second with declining uptake in the third (2017: AORs shifted to 7.32 and 0.01). Despite system-level differences, there was greater heterogeneity in receipt of co-testing associated with providers than clinics/facilities. In the three healthcare systems, providers in the highest quartile of co-testing use had an 8.35, 8.81, and 25.05-times greater odds of providing a co-test to women with the same characteristics relative to the lowest quartile. Similarly, clinics/ facilities in the highest quartile of co-testing use had a 4.20, 3.14, and 6.56-times greater odds of providing a co-test relative to the lowest quartile. Variation in screening test use is associated with health system, provider, and clinic/facility levels even after accounting for patient characteristics.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical cancer screening; Guideline implementation

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34762966      PMCID: PMC8724456          DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106871

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Med        ISSN: 0091-7435            Impact factor:   4.018


  18 in total

1.  American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer.

Authors:  Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna Cain; Francisco A R Garcia; Ann T Moriarty; Alan G Waxman; David C Wilbur; Nicolas Wentzensen; Levi S Downs; Mark Spitzer; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Eduardo L Franco; Mark H Stoler; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Evan R Myers
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 2.  Factors in quality care--the case of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests--problems in the steps and interfaces of care.

Authors:  Jane Zapka; Stephen H Taplin; Rebecca Anhang Price; Caroline Cranos; Robin Yabroff
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2010

3.  Uptake of HPV testing and extended cervical cancer screening intervals following cytology alone and Pap/HPV cotesting in women aged 30-65 years.

Authors:  Michelle I Silver; Anne F Rositch; Darcy F Phelan-Emrick; Patti E Gravitt
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 2.506

4.  Adherence patterns to extended cervical screening intervals in women undergoing human papillomavirus (HPV) and cytology cotesting.

Authors:  Katharine A Rendle; Mark Schiffman; Li C Cheung; Walter K Kinney; Barbara Fetterman; Nancy E Poitras; Thomas Lorey; Philip E Castle
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2017-12-27       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  Trends Over Time in Pap and Pap-HPV Cotesting for Cervical Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Kathy L MacLaughlin; Robert M Jacobson; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Patrick M Wilson; Debra J Jacobson; Chun Fan; Jennifer L St Sauver; Lila J Finney Rutten
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 2.681

6.  Estimated Quality of Life and Economic Outcomes Associated With 12 Cervical Cancer Screening Strategies: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  George F Sawaya; Erinn Sanstead; Fernando Alarid-Escudero; Karen Smith-McCune; Steven E Gregorich; Michael J Silverberg; Wendy Leyden; Megan J Huchko; Miriam Kuppermann; Shalini Kulasingam
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 21.873

7.  Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Authors:  Susan J Curry; Alex H Krist; Douglas K Owens; Michael J Barry; Aaron B Caughey; Karina W Davidson; Chyke A Doubeni; John W Epling; Alex R Kemper; Martha Kubik; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Maureen G Phipps; Michael Silverstein; Melissa A Simon; Chien-Wen Tseng; John B Wong
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-08-21       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 8.  A framework for improving the quality of cancer care: the case of breast and cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Jane G Zapka; Stephen H Taplin; Leif I Solberg; M Michele Manos
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Assessment of trends in cervical cancer screening rates using healthcare claims data: United States, 2003-2014.

Authors:  Meg Watson; Vicki Benard; Elaine W Flagg
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2018-02-02

10.  Cervical cancer screening research in the PROSPR I consortium: Rationale, methods and baseline findings from a US cohort.

Authors:  Aruna Kamineni; Jasmin A Tiro; Elisabeth F Beaber; Michael J Silverberg; Cosette M Wheeler; Chun R Chao; Jessica Chubak; Celette Sugg Skinner; Douglas A Corley; Jane J Kim; Bijal A Balasubramanian; V Paul Doria-Rose
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2018-12-20       Impact factor: 7.396

View more
  1 in total

1.  A model-based analysis of the health impacts of COVID-19 disruptions to primary cervical screening by time since last screen for current and future disruptions.

Authors:  Inge M C M de Kok; James F O'Mahony; Emily A Burger; Matejka Rebolj; Erik E L Jansen; Daniel D de Bondt; James Killen; Sharon J Hanley; Alejandra Castanon; Mary Caroline Regan; Jane J Kim; Karen Canfell; Megan A Smith
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-10-12       Impact factor: 8.713

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.