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
{"title":"Cervical Cancer Screening: Patient Perspectives on Transitioning to Primary High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing Alone.","authors":"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","doi":"10.7812/TPP/24.076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semistructured 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants 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.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":23037,"journal":{"name":"The Permanente journal","volume":" ","pages":"57-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Permanente journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/24.076","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: In 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.
Methods: Semistructured 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.
Results: Participants 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.
Conclusion: These 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.