A cross‐sectional survey examining clinician characteristics, practices, and attitudes associated with adoption of the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk‐based management consensus guidelines

Author:

Vadaparampil Susan T.12,Fuzzell Lindsay N.1,Brownstein Naomi C.3,Fontenot Holly B.4,Lake Paige1,Michel Alexandra4ORCID,McIntyre McKenzie1,Whitmer Ashley1,Perkins Rebecca B.5

Affiliation:

1. Health Outcomes and Behavior H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute Tampa Florida USA

2. Office of Community Outreach, Engagement, and Equity H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute Tampa Florida USA

3. Public Health Sciences Medical University of South Carolina Charleston South Carolina USA

4. Nancy Atmospera‐Walch School of Nursing University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu Hawaii USA

5. Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine Boston University Boston Massachusetts USA

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) risk‐based management consensus guidelines are the most recent national guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. These guidelines benefit patients by concentrating testing and treatment in those at highest cervical cancer risk. Adoption of guidelines often occurs slowly, with few studies examining the factors associated with guideline‐adherent management of abnormal results.MethodsTo elucidate the factors associated with the use of the 2019 ASCCP guidelines among clinicians who perform cervical cancer screening, physicians and advanced practice professionals who perform cervical cancer screening were cross‐sectionally surveyed. Clinicians responded to screening vignettes with differing recommendations for management between the 2019 and prior management guidelines. Screening vignette 1 involved reduction of invasive testing on a low‐risk patient; screening vignette 2 involved increased surveillance testing on a high‐risk patient. Binomial logistic regression models determined the factors associated with the use of the 2019 guidelines.ResultsA total of 1251 clinicians participated from across the United States. For screening vignettes 1 and 2, guideline‐adherent responses were given by 28% and 36% of participants, respectively. Management recommendations differed by specialty and were incorrect in different situations: there was inappropriate invasive testing by obstetrics and gynecology physicians (vignette 1) and inappropriate discontinuation of screening by family and internal medicine physicians (vignette 2). Regardless of their chosen response, over half erroneously believed they were guideline adherent.ConclusionsMany clinicians who believe they are following appropriate guidelines may not realize their management strategy is inconsistent with the 2019 guidelines. Education initiatives tailored to clinician specialty could address the understanding of current guidelines, encourage the use of updated guidelines, maximize patient benefits, and minimize harms.Plain Language Summary The 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk‐based management consensus guidelines are the most recent national guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening test management. We surveyed over 1200 obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN), family medicine, and internal medicine physicians and advanced practice providers about their screening and abnormal results follow‐up practices in relation to guidelines. Few clinicians are following the 2019 guidelines. Management recommendations differed by clinician specialty and were incorrect in different situations: there was inappropriate invasive testing by OB/GYN physicians and inappropriate screening discontinuation by family and internal medicine physicians. Education tailored by clinician specialty could address the understanding of current guidelines, encourage the use of updated guidelines, maximize patient benefits, and minimize harms.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Cancer Research,Oncology

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3