Management of women with minor abnormalities of the cervix detected on screening: a qualitative study

Cervical screening: time to change the policy

1. In 1991, the "organised approach to preventing cancer of the cervix" recommended Pap smears every two years for women aged 18-70 years who have ever been sexually active. 2. The two-year interval was a compromise step towards the scientifically supported three-year interval, as many influential groups were strongly attached to annual screening. When other components of the organised approach were in place, the policy was to be reviewed. 3. Since the safeguards in the "organised approach" have been proven effective, it is appropriate to change the policy to recommend a three-year interval. Increasing the interval would allow more resources to be allocated to enrolling women currently underscreened and to evaluating and improving the program. 4. The age of commencing smears could also be reconsidered to reflect the balance of potential benefits and harm in young women, for whom cancer is very rare but follow-up investigation common. 5. If consensus is not reached within the profession, an evidence-based decision may need to be made at the political level.

Predictors of early rescreening in the National Cervical Screening Program, Australia

OBJECTIVE

To identify variables that predict early rescreening after a negative Pap smear report.

METHODS

Cohort study using the records of a statewide Cervical Cytology Registry in Victoria, Australia. The cohort comprised 31,082 women who had a negative Pap smear report during the first half of 1996 and who were rescreened within the subsequent 36 months. Early rescreening was defined as a further Pap smear within 21 months.

RESULTS

The strongest predictor of early rescreening was a recommendation at the time of issuing the negative Pap smear report by the laboratory for retesting before two years (adjusted odds ratio = 3.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.58-4.05). Mention of reactive or inflammatory change as part of the negative Pap smear report was also a powerful predictor (adjusted odds ratio = 1.67, 95% CI 1.50-1.85). Significant predictors associated with the women were young age, high socio-economic status and residence in the capital city. Significant predictors associated with the practitioner were if either the index or subsequent smear was collected by an obstetrician/ gynaecologist or a hospital-based clinic, or if the practitioner collecting the index smear was a female. The population-attributable risk per cent associated with the laboratory recommendation was 27%.

CONCLUSIONS

This data suggests that a multifaceted strategy targeting pathology laboratories, practitioners and women may be needed to reduce early rescreening.

IMPLICATIONS

Early rescreening is wasteful of health resources. New screening programs should be designed to avoid this problem.