ArticleHealth services research and managerial epidemiology
Ending Cervical Cancer Screening in Low-Risk Women After Age 65: Understanding Barriers to Adherence With Evidence-Based Guidelines Among Primary Care Providers.
Article in Health services research and managerial epidemiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors Influencing Primary Care Practitioners' Cancer Screening Recommendations for Older Adults: a Systematic Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Factors associated with mammogram and Papanicolaou testing among Mexican American older women.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent evidence-based cervical cancer testing guidelines recommend that screening of low-risk women ceases after age 65. Despite this, research suggests that continued testing by primary care providers remains common and represents unnecessary patient discomfort, cost, and consumption of valuable primary care resources.
objectiveTo understand why primary care providers might knowingly ignore consensus evidence-based screening guidelines for cervical cancer in low-risk women of this age-group and to identify barriers to adherence with best practice recommendations.
methodsA survey tool to identify barriers to adherence with current guidelines for cervical cancer screening in low-risk women older than age 65 was mailed to 4929 randomly selected primary care providers throughout California. Providers were asked to indicate the predominant reason(s) they might knowingly continue cervical cancer screening in women older than 65 years, despite evidence-based recommendations to the contrary.
resultsQualified surveys were received from 1259 (25.5%) of those surveyed, representing primary care providers of all types, practicing in areas of vastly different demographics. Despite published reassurance to the contrary, many providers retain fear that discontinuation of testing in low-risk women after age 65 may result in missed invasive cervical cancer. Even among health-care providers who agree that cessation of screening is safe, other circumstances prompt their recommendation to continue cervical screening.
conclusionAlthough the data from this study suggest areas of policy intervention to lessen unnecessary cervical cancer screening, the broader implication is that advancement of evidence-based medicine will be of little value in improving the quality and cost of health care if barriers to guideline adherence are poorly understood and addressed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.