Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34762966›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine2022

Variation in the receipt of human papilloma virus co-testing for cervical screening: Individual, provider, facility and healthcare system characteristics.

Jennifer S Haas, David Cheng, Liyang Yu, Steven J Atlas, Cheryl Clark, Sarah Feldman, Michelle I Silver, Aruna Kamineni, Jessica Chubak, Gaia Pocobelli and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Process Mapping to Compare and Improve Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results in Two US Healthcare Systems within the PROSPR Consortium.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Assessing Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results and Concordance with Guideline Recommendations in Three US Healthcare Settings.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    Article
  9. 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

12 authors.

Jennifer S HaasDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America. Electronic address: Jennifer.Haas@mgh.harvard.edu.
David ChengBiostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Liyang YuDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Steven J AtlasDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Cheryl ClarkDivision of General Internal Medicine & Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Sarah FeldmanDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Michelle I SilverDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, United States of America.
Aruna KamineniKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Jessica ChubakKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Gaia PocobelliKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Jasmin A TiroDepartment of Population & Data Sciences and Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States of America.
Sarah C KobrinDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, United States of America.

Funding

PROSPR METRICS CISNET Collaboration Investigating Impact of Structural Racism/Discrimination on Cervical Screening Moonshot SupplementUM1CA221940 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI CHUBAK, JESSICA, HAAS, JENNIFER S · 2018 to 2023
$15.9M
NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA221940
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since 2012, cervical cancer screening guidelines allow for choice of screening test for women age 30-65 years (i.e., Pap every 3 years or Pap with human papillomavirus co-testing every 5 years). Intended to give patients and providers options, this flexibility reflects a trend in the growing complexity of screening guidelines. Our objective was to characterize variation in cervical screening at the individual, provider, clinic/facility, and healthcare system levels. The analysis included 296,924 individuals receiving screening from 3626 providers at 136 clinics/facilities in three healthcare systems, 2010 to 2017. Main outcome was receipt of co-testing vs. Pap alone. Co-testing was more common in one healthcare system before the 2012 guidelines (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of co-testing at the other systems relative to this system 0.00 and 0.50) but was increasingly implemented over time in a second with declining uptake in the third (2017: AORs shifted to 7.32 and 0.01). Despite system-level differences, there was greater heterogeneity in receipt of co-testing associated with providers than clinics/facilities. In the three healthcare systems, providers in the highest quartile of co-testing use had an 8.35, 8.81, and 25.05-times greater odds of providing a co-test to women with the same characteristics relative to the lowest quartile. Similarly, clinics/ facilities in the highest quartile of co-testing use had a 4.20, 3.14, and 6.56-times greater odds of providing a co-test relative to the lowest quartile. Variation in screening test use is associated with health system, provider, and clinic/facility levels even after accounting for patient characteristics.

Indexed as

AlphapapillomavirusPapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedDelivery of Health CareEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPapanicolaou TestPapillomaviridaeVaginal SmearsCervical cancer screeningGuideline implementation

Identifiers

PMID34762966
PMCPMC8724456

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.