Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41698781›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM2026

Characterizing Cervical Cancer Screening in the US: Preparing for the Era of Self-Collection.

Lisa F Soltani, Ilana Addis, Paul Lin, Neil Kamdar, Marie Claire O'Dwyer, Alisa P Young, Diane M Harper

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Kennedy v Braidwood Ruling Affects Women and Cervical Cancer Screening.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
    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.

Lisa F SoltaniFrom the Department of Internal Medicine, El Rio Community Health Center, Tucson, AZ (LFS); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; The University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ (IA); Institute of Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (PL); Institute of Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (NK); Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford University (NK); Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina (NK); Department of Family Medicine and Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (MCO); Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (APY); Departments of Family Medicine, Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's and Gender Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (DMH).
Ilana AddisFrom the Department of Internal Medicine, El Rio Community Health Center, Tucson, AZ (LFS); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; The University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ (IA); Institute of Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (PL); Institute of Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (NK); Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford University (NK); Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina (NK); Department of Family Medicine and Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (MCO); Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (APY); Departments of Family Medicine, Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's and Gender Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (DMH).
Paul LinFrom the Department of Internal Medicine, El Rio Community Health Center, Tucson, AZ (LFS); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; The University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ (IA); Institute of Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (PL); Institute of Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (NK); Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford University (NK); Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina (NK); Department of Family Medicine and Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (MCO); Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (APY); Departments of Family Medicine, Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's and Gender Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (DMH).
Neil KamdarFrom the Department of Internal Medicine, El Rio Community Health Center, Tucson, AZ (LFS); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; The University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ (IA); Institute of Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (PL); Institute of Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (NK); Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford University (NK); Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina (NK); Department of Family Medicine and Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (MCO); Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (APY); Departments of Family Medicine, Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's and Gender Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (DMH).
Marie Claire O'DwyerFrom the Department of Internal Medicine, El Rio Community Health Center, Tucson, AZ (LFS); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; The University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ (IA); Institute of Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (PL); Institute of Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (NK); Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford University (NK); Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina (NK); Department of Family Medicine and Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (MCO); Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (APY); Departments of Family Medicine, Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's and Gender Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (DMH).
Alisa P YoungFrom the Department of Internal Medicine, El Rio Community Health Center, Tucson, AZ (LFS); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; The University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ (IA); Institute of Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (PL); Institute of Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (NK); Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford University (NK); Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina (NK); Department of Family Medicine and Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (MCO); Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (APY); Departments of Family Medicine, Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's and Gender Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (DMH).
Diane M HarperFrom the Department of Internal Medicine, El Rio Community Health Center, Tucson, AZ (LFS); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; The University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ (IA); Institute of Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (PL); Institute of Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (NK); Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford University (NK); Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina (NK); Department of Family Medicine and Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (MCO); Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (APY); Departments of Family Medicine, Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's and Gender Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (DMH). harperdi@med.umich.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer screening (CCS) is shifting from in-office to self-screening. The primary aim of this study is to define a baseline distribution of in-office CCS providers by specialty and the race/ethnicity and age of those screened.

methodsWe extracted electronic health record data (Truveta-multiple health systems in 34 states) of individuals eligible for CCS aged 21 to 65, documented between January 1, 2017-December 31, 2022. Those with a hysterectomy before 2017, had any gynecological cancer at any time, or had evidence of CCS after the hysterectomy, except if there was a history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 (CIN 2/3) disease were excluded. We reported the total number of CCS and colposcopies per eligible patient and the specialty of the performing clinician (medical taxonomy).

resultsAmong the 2,439,331 individuals included in the study, the average age was 42.9 (SD 11.7). There were 3,412,148 CCSs linked with 1 of 3 provider specialties: obstetrics & gynecology (OG), family medicine (FM), and general internal medicine (GIM). OG provided less than half of all CCS, dropping to 31.6% of those 50 to 65. While only 70.5% (1,718,914) of the population received at least 1 CCS during the study, the mean CCS per patient was 2.6 (SD 2.7). The rate of colposcopy after a CCS was 3.9%. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Family and Internal Medicine clinicians provide the majority of CCS in the US (61.9%), particularly for people aged 50 to 65 (68.4%), when cervical cancer risk is the highest.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMass ScreeningUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedColposcopyFemaleHumansMiddle AgedUnited StatesUterine Cervical DysplasiaYoung AdultCancer ScreeningCervical CancerFamily MedicineGynecologyInternal MedicineMedical EducationObstetricsPopulation HealthPractice ManagementPreventive CarePrimary Health CarePublic HealthWomen's HealthWorkforce

Identifiers

PMID41698781
PMCPMC12978778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.