Changing Preferences for a Cervical Cancer Screening Strategy: Moving Away from Annual Testing.

Elizabeth Schrier, Hunter K Holt, Miriam Kuppermann, George F Sawaya
Author Information
  1. Elizabeth Schrier: School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. ORCID
  2. Hunter K Holt: Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
  3. Miriam Kuppermann: Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
  4. George F Sawaya: Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Abstract

Background: While annual cytology has not been recommended for many years, it remains many patients' preferred screening strategy for cervical cancer. Patient education and provider recommendations have been found effective in aligning professional society guidelines with patient preferences. We assessed whether an educational video with value elicitation exercises (utility assessments) changed screening strategy preferences among patients who had an initial preference for annual screening.
Materials and Methods: We conducted an interventional study of English- or Spanish-speaking women 21-65 years of age, recruited from two women's health clinics in San Francisco, California ( = 262). Participants were asked about their preferred method of screening before viewing a 7-minute educational video and using a computerized tool that elicited values for 23 different health states related to cervical cancer screening. Directly afterward, they were again asked about their preferred screening strategy. Multivariable regression analysis was utilized to identify independent predictors of changing preferences.
Results: Of 246 enrollees, 62.6% (154/246) had an initial preference for annual cytology; after viewing the video and completing the values elicitation exercises, about half (72/154, 47%) preferred a strategy other than annual screening. Having attended college and being screened every 3 to 5 years in the recent past were independent predictors of changing preferences away from annual screening. In sensitivity analyses, 53.2% of average-risk participants changed preferences away from annual cytology ( < 0.01).
Conclusions: Viewing an educational video and conducting a series of value elicitation exercises were associated with a substantially decreased likelihood of preferring annual screening. These findings underscore the importance of patient-centered education to help support informed patient preferences.

Keywords

References

  1. J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Mar;35(3):956-958 [PMID: 31313121]
  2. Am J Prev Med. 2015 Dec;49(6):e99-107 [PMID: 26141914]
  3. Prev Med. 2017 Feb;95:96-102 [PMID: 27932055]
  4. J Health Econ. 1986 Mar;5(1):1-30 [PMID: 10311607]
  5. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013 Apr;22(4):580-8 [PMID: 23355601]
  6. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Sep;217(3):338.e1-338.e7 [PMID: 28528899]
  7. Patient Educ Couns. 2019 Mar;102(3):411-415 [PMID: 30314831]
  8. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jul 1;179(7):867-878 [PMID: 31081851]
  9. Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Feb;125(2):317-329 [PMID: 25568994]
  10. Prev Med. 2014 May;62:49-53 [PMID: 24518004]
  11. JAMA. 2018 Aug 21;320(7):674-686 [PMID: 30140884]
  12. Am J Prev Med. 2018 Sep;55(3):389-394 [PMID: 30033024]
  13. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2016 May;25(5):422-7 [PMID: 27096534]
  14. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013 Apr;17(5 Suppl 1):S1-S27 [PMID: 23519301]
  15. Am J Prev Med. 2013 Aug;45(2):175-81 [PMID: 23867024]
  16. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Nov;120(5):1222-38 [PMID: 23090560]
  17. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jun 19;156(12):880-91, W312 [PMID: 22711081]
  18. Med Care. 2010 Mar;48(3):249-59 [PMID: 20182268]
  19. Prev Med. 2018 Mar;108:111-114 [PMID: 29277414]
  20. Prev Med. 2013 Nov;57(5):641-5 [PMID: 24012831]
  21. Health Serv Res. 1972 Summer;7(2):118-33 [PMID: 5044699]
  22. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Sep;70(5):321-346 [PMID: 32729638]
  23. Health Equity. 2018 Apr 01;2(1):30-36 [PMID: 29696243]
  24. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2021 Jan;30(1):5-13 [PMID: 33464997]
  25. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jul;217(1):86.e1-86.e6 [PMID: 28040449]

Grants

  1. K12 HD101373/NICHD NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0screeningannualpreferencespreferredstrategypatientvideocytologyyearscervicalcancereducationeducationalelicitationexercisesmanyvaluechangedinitialpreferencehealthaskedviewingvaluesindependentpredictorschangingawayinformedBackground:recommendedremainspatients'PatientproviderrecommendationsfoundeffectivealigningprofessionalsocietyguidelinesassessedwhetherutilityassessmentsamongpatientsMaterialsMethods:conductedinterventionalstudyEnglish-Spanish-speakingwomen21-65agerecruitedtwowomen'sclinicsSanFranciscoCalifornia = 262Participantsmethod7-minuteusingcomputerizedtoolelicited23differentstatesrelatedDirectlyafterwardMultivariableregressionanalysisutilizedidentifyResults:246enrollees626%154/246completinghalf72/15447%attendedcollegescreenedevery35recentpastsensitivityanalyses532%average-riskparticipants< 001Conclusions:Viewingconductingseriesassociatedsubstantiallydecreasedlikelihoodpreferringfindingsunderscoreimportancepatient-centeredhelpsupportChangingPreferencesCervicalCancerScreeningStrategy:MovingAwayAnnualTestinghigh-valuecaredecision-making

Similar Articles

Cited By