Cancer screening practices among physicians in the national breast and cervical cancer early detection program.

Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, USA.
Journal of Women's Health (Impact Factor: 1.9). 07/2011; 20(10):1479-84. DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2010.2530
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides low-income, uninsured women with screening and diagnostic services for breast and cervical cancer. Our study was conducted to describe the demographic and practice characteristics of participating and nonparticipating physicians, as well as their beliefs, adoption of new screening technologies, and recommendations for breast and cervical cancer screening.
From a 2006-2007 nationally representative survey, we identified 1,111 practicing primary care physicians who provide breast and cervical cancer screenings and assessed their recommendations using clinical vignettes related to screening initiation, frequency, and cessation. Responses of physicians participating in the NBCCEDP were compared with those from nonparticipating physicians.
Of the physicians surveyed, 15% reported participation in the NBCCEDP, 65% were not participants, and 20% were not sure or did not respond to this question. Program physicians were significantly more likely to practice in multispecialty settings, in a rural location, and in a hospital or clinic setting and had more patients who were female and insured by Medicaid or uninsured compared with nonprogram physicians. Beliefs about the effectiveness of screening tools or procedures in reducing breast or cervical cancer mortality were similar by program participation. Adoption of new technologies, including digital mammography and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, and making guideline-consistent recommendations for screening initiation, frequency, and cessation did not differ significantly by program participation.
Although there may be differences in physician characteristics and practice settings, the beliefs and screening practices for both breast and cervical cancer are similar between program and nonprogram providers.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In December 2009, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended cervical cancer screening begin at age 21 for young women. In this study, we examine receipt of first lifetime Papanicolaou (Pap) test and predictors of over-screening among adolescents within a large urban ambulatory care network. We compared the proportion of first lifetime Pap test of adolescents aged 13-20years between June 2007-November 2009 (n=7700) and December 2009-June 2012 (n=9637) using electronic health records. We employed multivariable regression models to identify demographic and health care factors associated with receiving a first lifetime Pap test at age <21years in the post-guideline period (over-screening). The proportion of Pap tests declined from 19.3% to 4.2% (p <0.001) between the two periods. Multivariable logistic regression results showed receiving care from gynecology/obstetrics/family planning clinics compared to pediatric clinics, having more clinic encounters, and older age were associated with over-screening in the post-guideline period. We found that guideline adherence differed by clinic type, insurance status, and health care encounters. In the quickly evolving field of cervical cancer control, it is important to monitor practice trends as they relate to shifts in population-based guidelines, especially in high-risk populations.
    Preventive Medicine 03/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.03.010 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the United States, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) are safety-net clinics that provide cervical cancer screening and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to medically underserved women, some of whom may be at risk for developing cervical cancer. National guidelines recommended against using screening test results or sexual history to determine vaccine eligibility. Documenting HPV vaccine recommendations and beliefs of primary care providers in FQHCs may aid in promoting evidence-based practices and prioritizing health interventions for vulnerable populations.
    Vaccine 08/2014; 32(42). DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.07.098 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cervical cancer is a leading cause of cancer mortality in nearly all U.S. Affiliated Pacific Island Jurisdictions (USAPIJ); however, most jurisdictions are financially and geographically limited in their capacity to deliver routine screening.Methods.We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 72 health care providers from five of the six USAPIJ in 2011 to assess knowledge, beliefs, practices, and perceived barriers regarding routine cervical cancer screening. We compared the responses of providers from jurisdictions that were funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) with those that were not funded.Results.Most providers reported cervical cancer prevention as a priority in their clinical practices (90.3%) and use the Papanicolaou test for screening (86.1%). Many providers reported knowledge of screening guidelines (76.4%); however, more than half reported that annual screening is most effective (56.9%). Providers in non-NBCCEDP-funded jurisdictions reported greater acceptance of visual inspection with acetic acid (93.9%) and self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing (48.5%) compared with NBCCEDP-funded jurisdictions (15.4% and 30.8% respectively). Providers from non-NBCCEDP-funded jurisdictions reported inadequate technological resources for screening women (42.4%), and approximately 25% of providers in both groups believed that screening was cost-prohibitive.Conclusion.Although cervical cancer screening is a priority in clinical practice, beliefs about annual screening, costs associated with screening, and varying levels of support for alternative screening tests pose barriers to providers throughout the USAPIJ. Further exploration of using evidence-based, lower cost, and sustainable screening technologies is warranted in addition to emphasizing timely follow-up of all positive cases.
    The Oncologist 03/2014; 19(4). DOI:10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0340 · 4.54 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jul 26, 2014