讨论子宫颈癌筛查方案:指导患者和提供者之间对话的结果。

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES MDM Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2020-08-19 eCollection Date: 2020-07-01 DOI:10.1177/2381468320952409
Hunter K Holt, Shalini Kulasingam, Erinn C Sanstead, Fernando Alarid-Escudero, Karen Smith-McCune, Steven E Gregorich, Michael J Silverberg, Megan J Huchko, Miriam Kuppermann, George F Sawaya
{"title":"讨论子宫颈癌筛查方案:指导患者和提供者之间对话的结果。","authors":"Hunter K Holt,&nbsp;Shalini Kulasingam,&nbsp;Erinn C Sanstead,&nbsp;Fernando Alarid-Escudero,&nbsp;Karen Smith-McCune,&nbsp;Steven E Gregorich,&nbsp;Michael J Silverberg,&nbsp;Megan J Huchko,&nbsp;Miriam Kuppermann,&nbsp;George F Sawaya","doi":"10.1177/2381468320952409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose.</b> In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) endorsed three strategies for cervical cancer screening in women ages 30 to 65: cytology every 3 years, testing for high-risk types of human papillomavirus (hrHPV) every 5 years, and cytology plus hrHPV testing (co-testing) every 5 years. It further recommended that women discuss with health care providers which testing strategy is best for them. To inform such discussions, we used decision analysis to estimate outcomes of screening strategies recommended for women at age 30. <b>Methods.</b> We constructed a Markov decision model using estimates of the natural history of HPV and cervical neoplasia. We evaluated the three USPSTF-endorsed strategies, hrHPV testing every 3 years and no screening. Outcomes included colposcopies with biopsy, false-positive testing (a colposcopy in which no cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse was found), treatments, cancers, and cancer mortality expressed per 10,000 women over a shorter-than-lifetime horizon (15-year). <b>Results.</b> All strategies resulted in substantially lower cancer and cancer death rates compared with no screening. Strategies with the lowest likelihood of cancer and cancer death generally had higher likelihood of colposcopy and false-positive testing. <b>Conclusions.</b> The screening strategies we evaluated involved tradeoffs in terms of benefits and harms. Because individual women may place different weights on these projected outcomes, the optimal choice for each woman may best be discerned through shared decision making.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"5 2","pages":"2381468320952409"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2381468320952409","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discussing Cervical Cancer Screening Options: Outcomes to Guide Conversations Between Patients and Providers.\",\"authors\":\"Hunter K Holt,&nbsp;Shalini Kulasingam,&nbsp;Erinn C Sanstead,&nbsp;Fernando Alarid-Escudero,&nbsp;Karen Smith-McCune,&nbsp;Steven E Gregorich,&nbsp;Michael J Silverberg,&nbsp;Megan J Huchko,&nbsp;Miriam Kuppermann,&nbsp;George F Sawaya\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2381468320952409\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Purpose.</b> In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) endorsed three strategies for cervical cancer screening in women ages 30 to 65: cytology every 3 years, testing for high-risk types of human papillomavirus (hrHPV) every 5 years, and cytology plus hrHPV testing (co-testing) every 5 years. It further recommended that women discuss with health care providers which testing strategy is best for them. To inform such discussions, we used decision analysis to estimate outcomes of screening strategies recommended for women at age 30. <b>Methods.</b> We constructed a Markov decision model using estimates of the natural history of HPV and cervical neoplasia. We evaluated the three USPSTF-endorsed strategies, hrHPV testing every 3 years and no screening. Outcomes included colposcopies with biopsy, false-positive testing (a colposcopy in which no cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse was found), treatments, cancers, and cancer mortality expressed per 10,000 women over a shorter-than-lifetime horizon (15-year). <b>Results.</b> All strategies resulted in substantially lower cancer and cancer death rates compared with no screening. Strategies with the lowest likelihood of cancer and cancer death generally had higher likelihood of colposcopy and false-positive testing. <b>Conclusions.</b> The screening strategies we evaluated involved tradeoffs in terms of benefits and harms. Because individual women may place different weights on these projected outcomes, the optimal choice for each woman may best be discerned through shared decision making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36567,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MDM Policy and Practice\",\"volume\":\"5 2\",\"pages\":\"2381468320952409\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2381468320952409\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MDM Policy and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2381468320952409\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2381468320952409","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的。2018年,美国预防服务工作组(USPSTF)批准了30至65岁女性宫颈癌筛查的三种策略:每3年进行一次细胞学检查,每5年进行一次高危型人乳头瘤病毒(hrHPV)检测,以及每5年进行一次细胞学和hrHPV检测(联合检测)。委员会还建议妇女与保健提供者讨论哪种检测策略最适合她们。为了给这些讨论提供信息,我们使用决策分析来估计推荐给30岁女性的筛查策略的结果。方法。我们构建了一个马尔可夫决策模型,利用HPV和宫颈肿瘤的自然史的估计。我们评估了三种uspstf认可的策略,每3年检测一次hrHPV,没有筛查。结果包括阴道镜活检,假阳性检测(阴道镜检查未发现宫颈上皮内瘤变2级或更糟),治疗,癌症和癌症死亡率,每10,000名妇女在较短的生命周期(15年)内表达。结果。与不进行筛查相比,所有策略的结果都大大降低了癌症和癌症死亡率。癌症和癌症死亡可能性最低的策略通常有更高的阴道镜检查和假阳性检测的可能性。结论。我们评估的筛查策略涉及利弊权衡。因为女性个体对这些预期结果的权重可能不同,所以每个女性的最佳选择可能最好通过共同决策来确定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Discussing Cervical Cancer Screening Options: Outcomes to Guide Conversations Between Patients and Providers.

Purpose. In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) endorsed three strategies for cervical cancer screening in women ages 30 to 65: cytology every 3 years, testing for high-risk types of human papillomavirus (hrHPV) every 5 years, and cytology plus hrHPV testing (co-testing) every 5 years. It further recommended that women discuss with health care providers which testing strategy is best for them. To inform such discussions, we used decision analysis to estimate outcomes of screening strategies recommended for women at age 30. Methods. We constructed a Markov decision model using estimates of the natural history of HPV and cervical neoplasia. We evaluated the three USPSTF-endorsed strategies, hrHPV testing every 3 years and no screening. Outcomes included colposcopies with biopsy, false-positive testing (a colposcopy in which no cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse was found), treatments, cancers, and cancer mortality expressed per 10,000 women over a shorter-than-lifetime horizon (15-year). Results. All strategies resulted in substantially lower cancer and cancer death rates compared with no screening. Strategies with the lowest likelihood of cancer and cancer death generally had higher likelihood of colposcopy and false-positive testing. Conclusions. The screening strategies we evaluated involved tradeoffs in terms of benefits and harms. Because individual women may place different weights on these projected outcomes, the optimal choice for each woman may best be discerned through shared decision making.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
MDM Policy and Practice
MDM Policy and Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Prioritizing Patients from the Most Deprived Areas on Elective Waiting Lists in the NHS in England: Estimating the Health and Health Inequality Impact. Optimizing Masks and Random Screening Test Usage within K-12 Schools. Associations of Concordant and Shared Lung Cancer Screening Decision Making with Decisional Conflict: A Multi-Institution Cross-Sectional Analysis. Implications of Diminishing Lifespan Marginal Utility for Valuing Equity in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Evaluation of the Soda Tax on Obesity and Diabetes in California: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
×
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