Project description:While the elevated lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancer is well recognised for patients with a BRCA mutation, the implementation of effective risk reduction strategies has been fraught with challenges. This report from an international database and published in the British Journal of Cancer reveals suboptimal rates of utilisation of surveillance/preventative measures globally.
Project description:BackgroundWomen with a history of incarceration bear a disproportionate burden of cervical disease and have special characteristics that affect their intent and/or ability to adhere to cervical screening and follow-up recommendations. The goal of this study was to identify factors associated with cervical cancer screening and screening outcomes among incarcerated women.MethodsWe applied a framework of predisposing factors, enabling factors and population-specific characteristics that could impact screening behaviors and outcomes for this population. We used bivariate chi-square tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to analyze data previously collected from 290 incarcerated women.ResultsCervical cancer screening belief score, as a predisposing factor, was associated with women who had an up-to-date Pap test and who had a cervical cancer diagnosis ever in their life. Both a sexual history containing high-risk behaviors and a history of abuse, population-specific factors, were each associated with having had an abnormal pap; mental health, incarceration, and substance use histories were each associated with having a diagnosis of cervical cancer.ConclusionsThe significant differences in outcomes for these population-specific factors suggest the need for a health services approach that addresses the challenges to the cervical cancer preventive health needs of incarcerated women.Implications for practiceProviders working with vulnerable populations such as women who have been incarcerated should be aware that their risk histories have an influence on their follow-up behaviors. These women will need extra support for cervical cancer screening and follow-up care.
Project description:This study investigates empirically how past screening behaviour, individual and household characteristics affect the current uptake of cervical cancer screening in UK. For the conceptual framework, we use a modified Grossman model which is extended for non-economic factors. A dynamic version of a random effects panel probit model with initial conditions is estimated on the balanced sub-sample of the data. The analysis sample is restricted to women of age 16 and older and grouped into different age categories with respect to the NHS Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP). As dataset a balanced panel data of 857 women with 11,998 observations from the British Household Panel Study (BHPS) for the period from 1992 to 2008 is used for the analysis. Results suggest show that previous screening uptake, age, partner status, employment status and a previous GP visit have a significant influence on the likelihood of the uptake of cervical cancer screening.
Project description:BackgroundThe attendance rate in Estonian cervical cancer screening programme is too low therefore the programme is hardly effective. A cross-sectional population based survey was performed to identify awareness of cervical cancer risk factors, reasons why women do not want to participate in cervical screening programme and wishes for better organisation of the programme.MethodAn anonymous questionnaire with a covering letter and a prepaid envelope was sent together with the screening invitation to 2942 randomly selected women. Results are based on the analysis of 1054 (36%) returned questionnaires.ResultsMain reasons for non-participation in the national screening programme were a recent visit to a gynaecologist (42.3%), fear to give a Pap-smear (14.3%), long appointment queues (12.9%) and unsuitable reception hours (11.8%). Fear to give a Pap-smear was higher among women aged 30 and 35 than 50 and 55 (RR 1.46; 95% CI: 0.82-2.59) and women with one or no deliveries (RR 1.56, 95% CI: 0.94-2.58). In general, awareness of cervical cancer risk factors is poor and it does not depend on socio-demographic factors. Awareness of screening was higher among Estonians than Russians (RR 1.64, 95% CI: 1.46-1.86). Most women prefer to receive information about screening from personally mailed invitation letters (74.8%).ConclusionsWomen need more information about cervical cancer risk factors and the screening programme. They prefer personally addressed information sharing. Minority groups should be addressed in their own language. A better collaboration with service providers and discouraging smears outside the programme are also required.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Many U.S. women continue to be screened annually for cervical cancer, despite current guidelines that recommend 3- or 5-year screening intervals depending on screening modality and patient age. METHODS:Data from 2012 and 2015 web-based surveys of U.S. adults were analyzed in 2017 to investigate U.S. women's cervical cancer screening preferences. The study was limited to women aged ?18 years without a hysterectomy or cervical cancer diagnosis (2012 n=1,380, 2015 n=1,339). RESULTS:Women's preference for 3- or 5-year screening intervals doubled during the study period (2012: 31.2%, 2015: 64.2%, p<0.001). The most preferred screening options in 2015 were co-testing every 3 years with the Pap and human papillomavirus tests (34.0%) and annual Pap testing (30.4%)-neither of which were recommended at that time or currently. Use of 3- and 5-year Pap testing intervals increased during the study period (2012: 6.9%, 2015: 12.9%, p<0.001), whereas annual Pap testing declined (2012: 48.5%, 2015: 35.6%, p<0.001). Among women who were regularly screened and preferred 3- or 5-year screening intervals, the minority reported screening practices that matched this preference (2012: 24.1%, 2015: 29.3%, p=0.71). CONCLUSIONS:Women's preference for longer cervical cancer screening intervals has increased rapidly and outpaced utilization. At the same time, many women continue to be screened annually. Expanding appropriate screening may require increasing women's and providers' comfort with screening recommendations.
Project description:BackgroundAssessing client and patient satisfaction towards a service is of programmatic importance. A study was conducted in Malawi between July and October 2013 to assess client satisfaction among women who had been screened for cervical cancer using Visual Inspection with Acetic acid test.MethodsThis was a cross sectional descriptive study which was conducted in 16 out of 43 cervical cancer screening centres. A semi structured questionnaire was used for data collection. Data were analyzed using STATA version 11 for windows. Descriptive statistics were computed to summarize participant characteristics. Logistic regression was also conducted to assess the relationship between client satisfaction with the service and the independent variables.ResultsOne hundred and twenty women with a mean age of 33.7 (SD = 10.1) participated in the survey. All women reported being satisfied with the received service at the facility, with 68.33% reported to be very satisfied. All demographic characteristics such as age, marital status, level of education, with exception of distance to the nearest health facility had no statistically significant association with satisfaction at both univariate and multivariate analysis. However, previous knowledge about the cause of the disease itself, its prevention, knowledge that the disease can be cured, knowledge of clinic times, previous knowledge of the VIA screening test and the source from where they heard about cervical cancer had a statistical significant relationship with the outcome variable. Logistic regression revealed that satisfaction in this study was predicted by having an appointment before the screening with adjusted odd ratio of 5.71(95%CI: 1.75 - 18.63), having previous knowledge of the VIA test, AOR?=?0.021(95% CI: 0.002-0.226) distance from the home to the health facility AOR?=?0.11(95%CI: 0.02-0.65) and waiting time AOR?=?0.09 with 95% CI: 0.09 - 0.83. Having an appointment had the only independent variable with a positive relationship with satisfaction.ConclusionWomen were satisfied with the screening service. The study also showed several challenges in cervical cancer screening services which can be considered as areas of potential improvement.
Project description:Because of the complexity of cervical cancer prevention guidelines, clinicians often fail to follow best-practice recommendations. Moreover, existing clinical decision support (CDS) systems generally recommend a cervical cytology every three years for all female patients, which is inappropriate for patients with abnormal findings that require surveillance at shorter intervals. To address this problem, we developed a decision tree-based CDS system that integrates national guidelines to provide comprehensive guidance to clinicians. Validation was performed in several iterations by comparing recommendations generated by the system with those of clinicians for 333 patients. The CDS system extracted relevant patient information from the electronic health record and applied the guideline model with an overall accuracy of 87%. Providers without CDS assistance needed an average of 1 minute 39 seconds to decide on recommendations for management of abnormal findings. Overall, our work demonstrates the feasibility and potential utility of automated recommendation system for cervical cancer screening and surveillance.
Project description:Risk factors of cervical cancer (CC) development are well investigated, however, those influencing the risk of a potential false negative cytology preceding diagnosis of an invasive CC are not. We have aimed to explore these factors according to the data from Organised Cervical Cancer Screening Programme (OCCSP) in Poland. A total of 2.36 million of Pap tests sampled in 2010-2012 within OCCSP were merged with the Polish National Cancer Registry to identify CC cases after abnormal cytology and after normal cytology within 3 years of screening. Of 1460 invasive CCs, 1025 were preceded by abnormal and 399 by normal cytology result. Multivariate logistic analysis indicated that the presence of microorganisms in the Pap (OR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.65-2.87), evaluation by smaller (below 9000 slides processed per year) laboratories (OR = 1.60, 95% CI 1.22-2.09) and non-squamous histology of cancer increased the odds for a potential false negative result (OR = 3.39, 95% CI 2.37-4.85 for adenocarcinoma, OR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.11-3.55 for other types of carcinoma), whereas cervical ectropion, other macroscopic changes on the cervix and smoking decrease the odds for a potential false negative Pap test result preceding CC (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.82, OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.25-0.67, OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.46-0.78, respectively). Proper triage of women with microscopic signs of microorganisms in the Pap smear should be reconsidered and cytology should be assessed in laboratories processing over 9000 slides annually to decrease the odds for negative Pap test result in 2 years before CC diagnosis. Information on macroscopic changes on the cervix provided to cytomorphologist may reduce the risk of a potential false negative cytology result.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Little is known about whether patients and physicians perceive lung cancer screening (LCS) as a teachable moment to promote smoking cessation or the degree to which physicians in "real world" settings link LCS discussions with smoking cessation counseling. We sought to characterize patient and physician perspectives of discussions about smoking cessation during LCS. METHODS:We conducted a qualitative study (interviews and focus groups) with 21 physicians and 28 smokers screened in four diverse hospitals. Transcripts were analyzed for characteristics of communication about smoking cessation and LCS, the perceived effect on motivation to quit smoking, the degree to which physicians leverage LCS as a teachable moment to promote smoking cessation, and suggestions to improve patient-physician communication about smoking cessation in the context of LCS. RESULTS:Patients reported that LCS made them more cognizant of the health consequences of smoking, priming them for a teachable moment. While physicians and patients both acknowledged that smoking cessation counseling was frequent, they described little connection between their discussions regarding LCS and smoking cessation counseling. Physicians identified several barriers to integrating discussions on smoking cessation and LCS. They volunteered communication strategies by which LCS could be leveraged to promote smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS:LCS highlights the harms of smoking to patients who are chronic, heavy smokers and thus may serve as a teachable moment for promoting smoking cessation. However, this opportunity is typically missed in clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS:LCS highlights the harms of smoking to heavily addicted smokers. Yet both physicians and patients reported little connection between LCS and tobacco treatment discussions due to multiple barriers. On-site tobacco treatment programs and post-screening messaging tailored to the LCS results are needed to maximize the health outcomes of LCS, including smoking quit rates and longer-term smoking-related morbidity and mortality.