Literature DB >> 8078847

Notification and follow-up of Pap test results: current practice and women's preferences.

M J Schofield1, R Sanson-Fisher, S Halpin, S Redman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine women's knowledge of their Pap test results and predictors of accurate knowledge, adherence to follow-up recommendations for abnormal results, current methods of notifying women about their Pap test results, women's preferences for notification method, and women's satisfaction with the current notification system.
METHOD: A telephone survey was undertaken of 315 women with a recent normal or abnormal Pap test result, drawn from pathology records in Sydney, Australia.
RESULTS: Findings revealed that 61% of women with a normal result and 93% of women with an abnormal result self reported having been notified about their result. According to women's reports, 7% of those with abnormal results had not been notified and a further 11% of women with abnormal results were unaware that their result was abnormal, giving a total of 18% of abnormal results not communicated adequately to women. Self-reported adherence with follow-up recommendations among women with an abnormal result was less than optimal. The most common methods of notifying women of their results were initiated by the women such as the woman phoning the doctor or receptionist. However, women strongly preferred doctor-initiated methods, such as a written record from the doctor, the doctor phoning the woman, or consultation with the doctor.
CONCLUSION: Results suggest that better methods of notifying and educating women about their Pap test results are necessary to improve women's knowledge and satisfaction and, even more importantly, to improve their level of adherence with follow-up recommendations for abnormal results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8078847     DOI: 10.1006/pmed.1994.1039

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


  9 in total

1.  Performance of implementing guideline-driven cervical cancer screening measures in an inner-city hospital system.

Authors:  Daryl L Wieland; Laura L Reimers; Eijean Wu; Lisa M Nathan; Tammy Gruenberg; Maria Abadi; Mark H Einstein
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.925

2.  Perspectives on Pap test follow-up care among rural Appalachian women.

Authors:  Nancy Schoenberg; Julie Baltisberger; Shoshana Bardach; Mark Dignan
Journal:  Women Health       Date:  2010-09

3.  Accuracy of patients' recall of Pap and cholesterol screening.

Authors:  S Newell; A Girgis; R Sanson-Fisher; M Ireland
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 4.  Is default from colposcopy a problem, and if so what can we do? A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  H Lester; S Wilson
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 5.  Mobile phone messaging for communicating results of medical investigations.

Authors:  Ipek Gurol-Urganci; Thyra de Jongh; Vlasta Vodopivec-Jamsek; Josip Car; Rifat Atun
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-06-13

6.  Management of test results in family medicine offices.

Authors:  Nancy C Elder; Timothy R McEwen; John M Flach; Jennie J Gallimore
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2009 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.166

7.  Estimation of Pap-test coverage in an area with an organised screening program: challenges for survey methods.

Authors:  Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Gennaro Esposito; Silvia Brezzi; Angela Brachini; Patrizio Raggi; Antonio Federici
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-03-17       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  Patient preferences for notification of normal laboratory test results: a report from the ASIPS Collaborative.

Authors:  Donna M Baldwin; Javán Quintela; Christine Duclos; Elizabeth W Staton; Wilson D Pace
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2005-03-08       Impact factor: 2.497

Review 9.  Communication of cancer screening results by letter, telephone or in person: A mixed methods systematic review of the effect on attendee anxiety, understanding and preferences.

Authors:  Sian Williamson; Jacoby Patterson; Rebecca Crosby; Rebecca Johnson; Harbinder Sandhu; Samantha Johnson; Jacquie Jenkins; Margaret Casey; Olive Kearins; Sian Taylor-Phillips
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2018-12-29
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.