Public cervical cancer screening recommendations from US cancer centers: Assessing adherence to national guidelines.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Medical Screening Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-20 DOI:10.1177/09691413241238960
Sophia Salingaros, Yiwey Shieh, Madelon L Finkel, Margaret Polaneczky, Deborah Korenstein, Jennifer L Marti
{"title":"Public cervical cancer screening recommendations from US cancer centers: Assessing adherence to national guidelines.","authors":"Sophia Salingaros, Yiwey Shieh, Madelon L Finkel, Margaret Polaneczky, Deborah Korenstein, Jennifer L Marti","doi":"10.1177/09691413241238960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Though widespread adoption of cervical cancer screening (CCS) in the US has been associated with a reduction in cervical cancer incidence and mortality, screening also carries with it potential risks. Newer national guidelines recommend decreased screening frequency to optimize the benefit/risk balance and to prevent over-screening. Here, we examined the alignment of US cancer center websites' public recommendations on CCS with national guidelines. We reviewed the websites of 1024 cancer centers accredited by the US Commission on Cancer during January-August 2022. We recorded the recommended frequency and type of CCS and any screening risks mentioned, comparing against national US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) and American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines. Of 1024 US cancer centers, 60% (610) provided CCS recommendations. Most centers are in alignment with the screening starting age (96%, 544/565) and stopping age (94%, 440/470) recommended by national guidelines. Of 508 centers specifying the frequency of standalone cervical cytology, 83% (419) recommended a screening interval of three years; however, 14% (73) recommended cervical cytology more frequently than the three-year interval recommended by the ACS/USPSTF. Screening risks were mentioned by 20% (124/610) of centers. Our findings highlight the importance of education on screening benefits and risks for physicians and patients to enable shared decision making based on evidence-based guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":" ","pages":"201-204"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Screening","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413241238960","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Though widespread adoption of cervical cancer screening (CCS) in the US has been associated with a reduction in cervical cancer incidence and mortality, screening also carries with it potential risks. Newer national guidelines recommend decreased screening frequency to optimize the benefit/risk balance and to prevent over-screening. Here, we examined the alignment of US cancer center websites' public recommendations on CCS with national guidelines. We reviewed the websites of 1024 cancer centers accredited by the US Commission on Cancer during January-August 2022. We recorded the recommended frequency and type of CCS and any screening risks mentioned, comparing against national US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) and American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines. Of 1024 US cancer centers, 60% (610) provided CCS recommendations. Most centers are in alignment with the screening starting age (96%, 544/565) and stopping age (94%, 440/470) recommended by national guidelines. Of 508 centers specifying the frequency of standalone cervical cytology, 83% (419) recommended a screening interval of three years; however, 14% (73) recommended cervical cytology more frequently than the three-year interval recommended by the ACS/USPSTF. Screening risks were mentioned by 20% (124/610) of centers. Our findings highlight the importance of education on screening benefits and risks for physicians and patients to enable shared decision making based on evidence-based guidelines.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国癌症中心提出的公众宫颈癌筛查建议:评估国家指导方针的遵守情况。
虽然宫颈癌筛查(CCS)在美国的广泛应用降低了宫颈癌的发病率和死亡率,但筛查也带来了潜在的风险。最新的国家指南建议降低筛查频率,以优化收益/风险平衡,防止过度筛查。在此,我们研究了美国癌症中心网站关于 CCS 的公开建议与国家指南的一致性。我们查阅了美国癌症委员会在 2022 年 1 月至 8 月期间认可的 1024 家癌症中心的网站。我们记录了推荐的CCS频率和类型以及提及的任何筛查风险,并与美国预防服务工作组(USPSTF)和美国癌症协会(ACS)的国家指南进行了比较。在 1024 家美国癌症中心中,60%(610 家)提供了 CCS 建议。大多数中心与国家指南推荐的筛查开始年龄(96%,544/565)和停止年龄(94%,440/470)一致。在 508 家规定了独立宫颈细胞学检查频率的中心中,83%(419 家)建议筛查间隔为三年;然而,14%(73 家)建议宫颈细胞学检查频率高于 ACS/USPSTF 建议的三年间隔。20%的中心(124/610)提到了筛查风险。我们的研究结果突显了对医生和患者进行筛查益处和风险教育的重要性,以便他们能够根据循证指南共同做出决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Screening
Journal of Medical Screening 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
40
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Screening, a fully peer reviewed journal, is concerned with all aspects of medical screening, particularly the publication of research that advances screening theory and practice. The journal aims to increase awareness of the principles of screening (quantitative and statistical aspects), screening techniques and procedures and methodologies from all specialties. An essential subscription for physicians, clinicians and academics with an interest in screening, epidemiology and public health.
期刊最新文献
Age-specific differences in tumour characteristics between screen-detected and non-screen-detected breast cancers in women aged 40-74 at diagnosis in Sweden from 2008 to 2017. Association between time to colonoscopy after positive fecal testing and colorectal cancer outcomes in Alberta, Canada. Cancer screening programs in Japan: Progress and challenges. Strong association between reduction of late-stage cancers and reduction of cancer-specific mortality in meta-regression of randomized screening trials across multiple cancer types. Factors associated with private or public breast cancer screening attendance in Queensland, Australia: A retrospective cross-sectional study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1