Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39444273›Full record

ArticleThe Permanente journal2024

Cervical Cancer Screening: Patient Perspectives on Transitioning to Primary High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing Alone.

Larissa L White, Shauna R Goldberg, Alison G Escobar, Brian Hixon, Chun R Chao, Erin E Hahn, Devansu Tewari, Brian S Mittman, Heather Spencer Feigelson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Permanente journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

9 authors.

Larissa L WhiteInstitute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado , Aurora, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9364-2704
Shauna R GoldbergInstitute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado , Aurora, CO, USA.
Alison G EscobarColorado Permanente Medical Group , Denver, CO, USA.
Brian HixonInstitute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado , Aurora, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6825-7409
Chun R ChaoDepartment of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California , Pasadena, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6072-4954
Erin E HahnDepartment of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California , Pasadena, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8419-2331
Devansu TewariDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente, Irvine, Gynecologic Oncology Division, Kaiser Permanente Southern California - Orange County Women's Health Services , Irvine, CA, USA.
Brian S MittmanDepartment of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California , Pasadena, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3589-9178
Heather Spencer FeigelsonInstitute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado , Aurora, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6691-3740

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force updated cervical cancer screening recommendations to allow for screening every 5 years with primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in combination with cytology (cotesting) or every 5 years with primary HPV screening alone. Despite these changes, the uptake of primary HPV screening has been lower than expected. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient perspective of an integrated health system transition from cotesting to primary HPV testing among a 30- to 65-year-old cohort.

methodsSemistructured phone interviews were conducted from July to December 2023 at Kaiser Permanente Colorado with 16 members aged 30-65 years. Interviews asked about reactions to the forthcoming change in cervical cancer screening, personal concern about cervical cancer risk, feedback on patient-facing education materials, and preference on communication timing and modality.

resultsParticipants reported concerns about cervical cancer screening intervals, primarily the reduction in frequency leading to underdiagnosis of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Participants recommended defining the rationale for the change to primary HPV testing in the patient education materials. Participants preferred communication about the change in-clinic between practitioner and patient. DISCUSSION: The interviews identified key themes, including the differentiation between cervical cancer and STI screening methodologies, potential underdiagnosis of STI and cervical cancer, and the rationale supporting primary HPV testing and associated screening intervals.

conclusionThese qualitative findings can inform health systems of potential patient concerns to address when considering the transition from cotesting every 3 years to primary HPV testing every 5 years for cervical cancer screening.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerPapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedColoradoFemaleHuman Papillomavirus VirusesHumansInterviews as TopicMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPapillomaviridaeHuman Papillomavirus VirusesMass ScreeningQualitative ResearchUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID39444273
PMCPMC11648333

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.