US physicians' intentions regarding impact of human papillomavirus vaccine on cervical cancer screening

Providers' practice, recommendations and beliefs about HPV vaccination and their adherence to guidelines about the use of HPV testing, 2007 to 2010

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines prevent cervical pre-cancer lesion and can potentially reduce abnormal Papanicolaou (Pap) results among vaccinated females. However, current U.S. cervical screening guidelines recommend no change in screening initiation and frequency based on vaccination status. We examined providers' practices and beliefs about HPV vaccination to evaluate their adherence to guidelines. We used 4-year data (2007-2010) from two nationally representative samples totaling 2119 primary-care providers from the Cervical Cancer Screening Supplement to the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). Providers in each survey were stratified to obstetrician/gynecologist (OB/GYNs) and non-OB/GYNs. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were performed to assess differences between providers' types in each survey. Approximately 60% of providers believed that HPV vaccination will result in fewer abnormal Pap tests and fewer referrals to colposcopy and over 92% would not change their cervical cancer screening practices for fully vaccinated females. NAMCS OB/GYNs were more likely (p<0.05) than non-OB/GYNs to rarely/never use the number of sexual partners to determine who gets the HPV vaccine (68.4% vs. 59.1%), more likely to recommend the vaccine to females with history of abnormal Pap (79.6% vs. 68.4%) and to females with a history of HPV positive test result (75.3% vs. 62.8%). Consistent with guidelines, most providers would not change cervical cancer screening practices based on patients' vaccination history. However, some providers used inappropriate tests for making vaccination decisions. Improving HPV vaccine knowledge and recommendations for its use is warranted to implement a successful vaccine program.

Physicians' beliefs about effectiveness of cancer screening tests: a national survey of family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists

OBJECTIVE

To study physicians' beliefs about the effectiveness of different tests for cancer screening.

METHODS

Data were examined from the Women's Health Survey of 1574 Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, and Obstetrics-Gynecology physicians to questions about their level of agreement about the clinical effectiveness of different tests for breast, cervical, ovarian, and colorectal cancer screening among average risk women. Data were weighted to the U.S. physician population based on the American Medical Association Masterfile. Multivariable logistic regression identified physician and practice characteristics significantly associated with physicians' beliefs.

RESULTS

There were 1574 respondents, representing a 62% response rate. The majority of physicians agreed with the effectiveness of mammography for women aged 50-69years, Pap tests for women aged 21-65years, and colonoscopy for individuals aged ≥50years. A substantial proportion of physicians believed that non-recommended tests were effective for screening (e.g., 34.4% for breast MRI and 69.1% for annual pelvic exam). Physicians typically listed their respective specialty organizations as a top influential organization for screening recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

There were several substantial inconsistencies between physician beliefs in the effectiveness of cancer screening tests and the actual evidence of these tests' effectiveness which can lead both to underuse and overuse of cancer screening tests.

Primary care providers human papillomavirus vaccine recommendations for the medically underserved: a pilot study in U.S. Federally Qualified Health Centers

INTRODUCTION

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 recommend 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.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2010, we collected data from 98 primary care providers in 15 FQHC clinics in IL, USA using a cross-sectional survey. Questions assessed provider and practice characteristics, HPV vaccine recommendations, and provider's belief about whether their screening and management procedures would change for women who were vaccinated.

RESULTS

93% of providers recommended the HPV vaccine, most frequently for females aged 13-26 years (98%). Some providers reported sometimes to always using HPV test results (12%), Pap test results (7%), and number of sexual partners (33%) to determine vaccine eligibility. More than half of providers (55%) reported they will not change their screening and management practices for vaccinated females, yet believe vaccination will yield fewer abnormal Pap tests (71%) and referrals for colposcopy (74%).

CONCLUSION

Study providers routinely recommended the HPV vaccine for their patients. However, providers made fewer recommendations to vaccinate females ages 9-12 years (which includes the target age for vaccination) compared to older females, and used pre-vaccination assessments not recommended by U.S. guidelines, such as screening test results and number of sexual partners. In order to maximize the public health benefit of the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, adherence to guidelines is necessary, especially in settings that provide care to medically underserved women.

Physicians' intentions to change pap smear frequency following human papillomavirus vaccination

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We evaluated factors associated with physicians' intentions to perform Pap smears in human papillomavirus-vaccinated women.

DESIGN

Physicians were mailed a survey asking about intentions to change cervical cancer screening based on patients' human papillomavirus vaccination status.

PARTICIPANTS

A national sample of 1,738 Family Physicians, Internal Medicine Physicians, Pediatricians, and Obstetricians and Gynecologists was selected from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. Completed surveys were received from 1,118 physicians, of which 791 were included in the analyses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Bivariate analyses compared physician, practice, and patient characteristics by intention change screening frequency. Significant variables were included in a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Overall, 81.8% (n = 647) of physicians reported not planning to change Pap smear frequency for vaccinated women. Internal Medicine physicians were significantly more likely than Obstetrician/Gynecologists to report intentions to change frequency for vaccinated patients. Other factors significantly associated with the intention to change frequency were self-identification as a late adopter of new vaccines, a solo practice, and practicing primarily in a clinic or hospital-based setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Although it appears most clinicians understand that human papillomavirus vaccination should not alter current screening practices, there is a need to develop and evaluate interventions for physicians who are likely to change their screening pattern based on human papillomavirus vaccination receipt.

Cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands: a tale of two countries

CONTEXT

This article compares cervical cancer screening intensity and cervical cancer mortality trends in the United States and the Netherlands to illustrate the potential of cross-national comparative studies. We discuss the lessons that can be learned from the comparison as well as the challenges in each country to effective and efficient screening.

METHODS

We used nationally representative data sources in the United States and the Netherlands to estimate the number of Pap smears and the cervical cancer mortality rate since 1950. The following questions are addressed: How do differences in intensity of Pap smear use between the countries translate into differences in mortality trends? Can population coverage rates (the proportion of eligible women who had a Pap smear within a specified period) explain the mortality trends better than the total intensity of Pap smear use?

FINDINGS

Even though three to four times more Pap smears per woman were conducted in the United States than in the Netherlands over a period of three decades, the two countries' mortality trends were quite similar. The five-year coverage rates for women aged thirty to sixty-four were quite comparable at 80 to 90 percent. Because screening in the Netherlands was limited to ages thirty to sixty, screening rates for women under thirty and over sixty were much higher in the United States. These differences had consequences for age-specific mortality trends. The relatively good coverage rate in the Netherlands can be traced back to a nationwide invitation system based on municipal population registries. While both countries followed a "policy cycle" involving evidence review, surveillance of screening practices and outcomes, clinical guidelines, and reimbursement policies, the components of this cycle were more systematically linked and implemented nationwide in the Netherlands than in the United States. To a large extent, this was facilitated by a public health model of screening in the Netherlands, rather than a medical services model.

CONCLUSIONS

Cross-country studies like ours are natural experiments that can produce insights not easily obtained from other types of study. The cervical cancer screening system in the Netherlands seems to have been as effective as the U.S. system but used much less screening. Adequate coverage of the female population at risk seems to be of central importance.