Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37361923›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2023

Factors associated with shorter-interval cervical cancer screening for young women in three United States healthcare systems.

Anne Marie McCarthy, Jasmin A Tiro, Ellen Hu, Sarah Ehsan, Jessica Chubak, Aruna Kamineni, Sarah Feldman, Steven J Atlas, Michelle I Silver, Sarah Kobrin and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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
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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Anne Marie McCarthyDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jasmin A TiroDepartment of Population & Data Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Ellen HuDepartment of Population & Data Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Sarah EhsanDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jessica ChubakKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Aruna KamineniKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Sarah FeldmanDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Steven J AtlasDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Michelle I SilverDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Sarah KobrinHealthcare Delivery Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Science, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Jennifer S HaasDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Harvard University · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USNational Cancer Institute · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Frequently changing cervical cancer screening guidelines over the past two decades have been inconsistently adopted in the United States. Current guidelines set the recommended screening interval to three years for average-risk women aged 21-29 years. Few studies have evaluated how patient and provider factors are associated with implementation of cervical cancer screening intervals among younger women. This study evaluated multilevel factors associated with screening interval length among 69,939 women aged 21-29 years with an initial negative Pap screen between 2010 and 2015 across three large health systems in the U.S. Shorter-interval screening was defined as a second screening Pap within 2.5 years of an initial negative Pap. Mixed-effects logistic regression was performed for each site to identify provider and patient characteristics associated with shorter-interval screening. The odds of shorter-interval screening decreased over the study period across all sites, though the proportion of patients screened within 2.5 years remained between 7.5% and 20.7% across sites in 2014-2015. Patient factors including insurance, race/ethnicity, and pregnancy were associated with shorter-interval screening, though the patterns differed across sites. At one site, the variation in shorter-interval screening explained by the provider was 10.6%, whereas at the other two sites, the provider accounted for < 2% of the variation in shorter-interval screening. Our results highlight the heterogeneity in factors driving cervical cancer screening interval across health systems and point to the need for tailored approaches targeted to both providers and patients to improve guideline-concordant screening.

Indexed as

Cancer preventionCervical cancerMultilevelPap screeningScreening interval

Identifiers

PMID37361923
PMCPMC10285268
OpenAlexW4380208251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.