Provider beliefs in effectiveness and recommendations for primary HPV testing in 3 health-care systems

Author:

Kruse Gina R1ORCID,Lykken Jacquelyn M2,Kim Eric J2,Haas Jennifer S1,Higashi Robin T23,Atlas Steven J1,McCarthy Anne Marie4,Tiro Jasmin A5,Silver Michelle I6,Skinner Celette S23,Kamineni Aruna7

Affiliation:

1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA, USA

2. Department of Population and Data Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center , Dallas, TX, USA

3. Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center , Dallas, TX, USA

4. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, PA, USA

5. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago—Biological Sciences Division , Chicago, IL, USA

6. Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine , St Louis, MO, USA

7. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute , Seattle, WA, USA

Abstract

Abstract In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force endorsed primary human papillomavirus testing (pHPV) for cervical cancer screening. We aimed to describe providers’ beliefs about pHPV testing effectiveness and which screening approach they regularly recommend. We invited providers who performed 10 or more cervical cancer screens in 2019 in 3 healthcare systems that had not adopted pHPV testing: Kaiser Permanente Washington, Mass General Brigham, and Parkland Health; 53.7% (501/933) completed the survey between October and December 2020. Response distributions varied across modalities (P < .001), with cytology alone or cotesting being more often viewed as somewhat or very effective for 30- to 65-year-olds compared with pHPV (cytology alone 94.1%, cotesting 96.1%, pHPV 66.0%). In 21- to 29-year-olds, the pattern was similar (cytology alone 92.2%, 64.7% cotesting, 50.8% pHPV). Most providers were either incorrect or unsure of the guideline-recommended screening interval for pHPV. Educational efforts are needed about the relative effectiveness and recommended use of pHPV to promote guideline-concordant care.

Funder

National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Cancer Research,Oncology

Cited by 3 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