Article

Screening for cervical cancer: Will women accept less?

Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States
The American Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 5.3). 03/2005; 118(2):151-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.08.021
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT U.S. professional organizations increasingly agree that most women require Papanicolaou smear screening every 2 to 3 years rather than annually and that most elderly women may stop screening. We sought to describe the attitudes of women in the United States toward less intense screening, specifically, less frequent screening and eventual cessation of screening.
We conducted a random-digit-dialing telephone survey of women in 2002 (response rate of 75% among eligible women reached by telephone). A nationally representative sample of 360 women aged 40 years or older with no history of cancer was surveyed about their acceptance of less intense screening.
Almost all women aged 40 years or older (99%) had had at least one Pap smear; most (59%) were screened annually. When women were asked to choose their preferred frequency for screening, 75% preferred screening at least annually (12% chose screening every 6 months). Less than half (43%) had heard of recommendations advocating less frequent screening. When advised of such recommendations, half of all women believed that they were based on cost. Sixty-nine percent said that they would try to continue being screened annually even if their doctors recommended less frequent screening and advised them of comparable benefits. Only 35% of women thought that there might come a time when they would stop getting Pap smears; of these, almost half would not stop until after age 80 years. The strongest predictor of reluctance to reduce the frequency of screening was a belief that cost was the basis of current screening frequency recommendations.
Most women in the United States prefer annual Pap smears and are resistant to the idea of less intense screening. Concern that cost considerations rather than evidence form the basis of screening recommendations may partly explain women's reluctance to accept less intense screening.

0 Followers
 · 
71 Views
  • Source
    01/2014; DOI:10.5455/musbed.20140711031132
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The poor outcomes for cancers diagnosed at an advanced stage have been the driver behind research into techniques to detect disease before symptoms are manifest. For cervical and colorectal cancer, detection and treatment of "precancers" can prevent the development of cancer, a form of primary prevention. For other cancers-breast, prostate, lung, and ovarian-screening is a form of secondary prevention, aiming to improve outcomes through earlier diagnosis. International and national expert organizations regularly assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening technologies, issuing clinical guidelines for population-wide implementation. Psychological research has made important contributions to this process, assessing the psychological costs and benefits of possible screening outcomes (e.g., the impact of false positive results) and public tolerance of overdiagnosis. Cervical, colorectal, and breast screening are currently recommended, and prostate, lung, and ovarian screening are under active review. Once technologies and guidelines are in place, delivery of screening is implemented according to the health care system of the country, with invitation systems and provider recommendations playing a key role. Behavioral scientists can then investigate how individuals make screening decisions, assessing the impact of knowledge, perceived cancer risk, worry, and normative beliefs about screening, and this information can be used to develop strategies to promote screening uptake. This article describes current cancer screening options, discusses behavioral research designed to reduce underscreening and minimize inequalities, and considers the issues that are being raised by informed decision making and the development of risk-stratified approaches to screening. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
    American Psychologist 02/2015; 70(2):119-133. DOI:10.1037/a0037357 · 6.87 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To explore attitudes toward new cervical cancer screening options and understand factors associated with those beliefs among women in routine gynecologic care. We used an interviewer-administered survey of 551 women aged 36-62 years enrolled in the HPV in Perimenopause Study. Poisson regression with robust error variance was used to estimate prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare women's preferences for cervical cancer screening methods and frequency. A majority of women (55.6%, 95% CI 51.4-59.8%) were aware that screening recommendations had changed, yet 74.1% (95% CI 70.3-77.7%) still believed women should be screened annually. If recommended by their doctor, 68.4% (95% CI 64.4-72.2%) were willing to extend screening to every 3 years, but only 25.2% (95% CI 21.9-29.2%) would extend screening to 5 years. Most women (60.7%, 95% CI 56.5-65.7%) expressed a strong preference for Pap testing, and 41.4% (95% CI 37.4-45.6%) expressed at least moderate concern over having a human papillomavirus (HPV) test without a Pap test. A desire for more frequent care, higher degree of worry and perceived risk, and abnormal screening history were all associated with reduced willingness to accept HPV testing and longer screening intervals. A majority of routinely screened women indicated a willingness to adopt a cervical cancer screening strategy of cytology alone or Pap-HPV cotesting every 3 years if recommended by their physician. However, they remain concerned about HPV testing and extension of screening intervals to once every 5 years. Our results suggest continued reticence to accepting newer HPV-based screening algorithms among routinely screened women older than age 35 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: III.
    Obstetrics and Gynecology 01/2015; DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000638 · 4.37 Impact Factor