Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29474237›Full record

ArticleJournal of lower genital tract disease2018

Trends in Cervical Cancer Screening in California's Family Planning Program.

Heike Thiel de Bocanegra, Sandy K Navarro, Narissa J Nonzee, Sitaram Vangala, Xinkai Zhou, Charlene Chang, Anna-Barbara Moscicki

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of lower genital tract disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Heike Thiel de BocanegraBixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA.
Sandy K NavarroBixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA.
Narissa J NonzeeCenter for Cancer Prevention and Control Research and Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Sitaram VangalaDivision of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Xinkai ZhouDivision of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Charlene ChangDepartment of Pediatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Anna-Barbara MoscickiDepartment of Pediatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
University of California, Los Angeles · USIbis Reproductive Health · US

Funding

NRSA Training CoreTL1TR001883 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI ALEX BUI, Nina Thawata Harawa · 2016 to 2026
$8.6M
UCLA Clinical and Translational Science InstituteTL1TR000121 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI DUBINETT, STEVEN M. · 2012 to 2015
$2.7M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR000121NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001883
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveGuidelines recommend 3-year cervical cancer screening intervals to avoid unnecessary invasive procedures; however, regular testing remains critical. We evaluated trends in cervical cancer screening among low-income women receiving family planning-related services and their association with patient and provider characteristics. MATERIALS AND

methodsUsing claims and enrollment data from California's publicly funded family planning program, we identified 540,026 women with a clinician visit at 216 sites between 2011 and 2015. We calculated guideline adherent cervical cancer testing rates for 6-month periods among women aged 21 to 24, 25 to 29, and 30 to 64 years. We also calculated guideline adherent chlamydia testing for women aged 21 to 24 years.

resultsHaving a 3-year cervical cancer screening test declined for all age groups. The odds of cervical cancer screening declined for women aged 21 to 24 years by an estimated 11% every 6 months (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89-0.90), a significantly greater decline than for the other age groups. Among women aged 21 to 29 years, the decrease was significantly larger for Latina (ratio of ORs = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.95-0.96) and Spanish-speaking (ratio of ORs = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.95-0.96) women compared with non-Latina and non-Spanish-speaking women. A smaller decline was seen for chlamydia screening.

conclusionsChanges in screening interval guidelines are associated with overall decreased screening. This trend was strongest among women aged 21 to 24 years, even as they continued to be screened appropriately for chlamydia, suggesting many missed opportunities. Efforts to reduce unnecessary cervical cancer screening should be monitored to maintain appropriate screening rates to avoid advanced-stage diagnoses and higher health care costs.

Indexed as

Family Planning ServicesAdultCaliforniaChlamydia InfectionsFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedUterine Cervical NeoplasmsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29474237
PMCPMC6014881
OpenAlexW2790316812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.