Literature DB >> 34800474

Does mailing unsolicited HPV self-sampling kits to women overdue for cervical cancer screening impact uptake of other preventive health services in a United States integrated delivery system?

Hitomi Kariya1, Diana S M Buist2, Melissa L Anderson3, John Lin4, Hongyuan Gao3, Linda K Ko5, Rachel L Winer6.   

Abstract

Women overdue for cervical cancer screening often have other preventive care gaps. We examined whether mailing unsolicited human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kits to increase cervical cancer screening impacted receipt of other preventive services women were due for: mammography, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, influenza vaccination, depression screening, and diabetic HbA1c monitoring. From 2014 to 2016, 16,590 underscreened women were randomized to receive a mailed kit or usual care Pap reminders within Kaiser Permanente Washington. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of preventive services receipt within 12-months between the intervention vs. control arms, and within the intervention arm (comparing those returning a kit vs. attending Pap vs. nothing), adjusting models for demographic variables. There were no significant between-arm differences in uptake of any of the preventive services: intervention vs. control: mammography OR = 1.01 (95% confidence interval:0.88-1.17), CRC screening OR = 0.98 (0.86-1.13), influenza vaccination OR = 0.99 (0.92-1.06), depression screening OR = 1.07 (0.99-1.16), HbA1c OR = 0.84 (0.62-1.13). Within the intervention arm, preventive services uptake was higher in women who completed cervical cancer screening vs. did not, with stronger effects for women who attended Pap: Pap vs. nothing: mammography OR = 11.81 (8.11-17.19), CRC screening OR = 7.31 (5.57-9.58), influenza vaccination OR = 2.06 (1.82-2.32), depression screening OR = 1.79 (1.57-2.05), HbA1c OR = 3.35 (1.49-7.52); kit vs. nothing: mammography OR = 2.26 (1.56-3.26), CRC screening OR = 5.05 (3.57-7.14), influenza vaccination OR = 1.67 (1.41-1.98), depression screening OR = 1.09 (0.89-1.33), HbA1c OR = 1.23 (0.57-2.65). Mailing HPV self-sampling kits to underscreened women did not negatively impact uptake of other preventive services. However, overall preventive service uptake was the highest among women who attended in-clinic cervical cancer screening.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer screening; Cervical cancer; Human papillomavirus; Preventive health services; Self-testing

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34800474      PMCID: PMC8724401          DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106896

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


  43 in total

1.  Causation and causal inference in epidemiology.

Authors:  Kenneth J Rothman; Sander Greenland
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Reasons for non-attendance at cervical screening as reported by non-attendees in Sweden.

Authors:  Marie G Oscarsson; Eva G Benzein; Barbro E Wijma
Journal:  J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.949

3.  Effect of pay-for-performance on cervical cancer screening participation in France.

Authors:  Panayotis Constantinou; Jonathan Sicsic; Carine Franc
Journal:  Int J Health Econ Manag       Date:  2016-12-22

4.  The role of physician involvement in Latinas' mammography screening adherence.

Authors:  Patricia González; Evelinn A Borrayo
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2011-01-13

5.  Associations in breast and colon cancer screening behavior in women.

Authors:  Ruth C Carlos; A Mark Fendrick; Stephanie K Patterson; Steven J Bernstein
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Breast cancer screening outreach effectiveness: Mammogram-specific reminders vs. comprehensive preventive services birthday letters.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Hongyuan Gao; Melissa L Anderson; Tracy Onega; Susan Brandzel; Melissa A Rabelhofer; Susan Carol Bradford; Erin J Aiello Bowles
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2017-06-24       Impact factor: 4.018

7.  Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: attributable factors in the screening process.

Authors:  Wendy A Leyden; M Michele Manos; Ann M Geiger; Sheila Weinmann; Judy Mouchawar; Kimberly Bischoff; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Joyce Gilbert; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-05-04       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Recent changes in cervical cancer screening guidelines: U.S. women's willingness for HPV testing instead of Pap testing.

Authors:  Erika L Thompson; Annalynn M Galvin; Ellen M Daley; Ovidiu Tatar; Gregory D Zimet; Zeev Rosberger
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2019-11-19       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 9.  Behavioral economics: "nudging" underserved populations to be screened for cancer.

Authors:  Jason Q Purnell; Tess Thompson; Matthew W Kreuter; Timothy D McBride
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2015-01-15       Impact factor: 2.830

10.  Evaluating the Effectiveness of Interventions on Increasing Participation in Cervical Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Gonul Kurt; Aygul Akyuz
Journal:  J Nurs Res       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 1.682

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.