Katherine B. Roland

Barriers to human papillomavirus vaccination among US adolescents: a systematic review of the literature.

IMPORTANCE Since licensure of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in 2006, HPV vaccine coverage among US adolescents has increased but remains low compared with other recommended vaccines. OBJECTIVE To systematically review the literature on barriers to HPV vaccination among US adolescents to inform future efforts to increase HPV vaccine coverage. EVIDENCE REVIEW We searched PubMed and previous review articles to identify original research articles describing barriers to HPV vaccine initiation and completion among US adolescents. Only articles reporting data collected in 2009 or later were included. Findings from 55 relevant articles were summarized by target populations: health care professionals, parents, underserved and disadvantaged populations, and males. FINDINGS Health care professionals cited financial concerns and parental attitudes and concerns as barriers to providing the HPV vaccine to patients. Parents often reported needing more information before vaccinating their children. Concerns about the vaccines effect on sexual behavior, low perceived risk of HPV infection, social influences, irregular preventive care, and vaccine cost were also identified as potential barriers among parents. Some parents of sons reported not vaccinating their sons because of the perceived lack of direct benefit. Parents consistently cited health care professional recommendations as one of the most important factors in their decision to vaccinate their children. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Continued efforts are needed to ensure that health care professionals and parents understand the importance of vaccinating adolescents before they become sexually active. Health care professionals may benefit from guidance on communicating HPV recommendations to patients and parents. Further efforts are also needed to reduce missed opportunities for HPV vaccination when adolescents interface with the health care system. Efforts to increase uptake should take into account the specific needs of subgroups within the population. Efforts that address system-level barriers to vaccination may help to increase overall HPV vaccine uptake.

A literature review of the social and psychological needs of ovarian cancer survivors

To identify and comprehensively present the psychosocial needs of ovarian cancer (OvCa) survivors, including young survivors <45 years of age.

Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests screening interval recommendations in the United States

OBJECTIVE Guidelines recommend when the human papillomavirus (HPV) and Papanicolaou tests are used together (HPV co-test) for routine cervical cancer screening, screening intervals can be extended to 3 years. We assessed HPV test practices and Papanicolaou test screening interval recommendations of US providers. STUDY DESIGN Using a multistage probability design, we analyzed nationally representative data that were collected in 2006 through the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. RESULTS Approximately 51% of providers ordered the HPV co-test; however, clinical vignettes found that <15% of providers who ordered the HPV test recommend the next Papanicolaou test in 3 years for women with concurrent normal HPV co-test results and a documented normal screening history. CONCLUSION Overall, annual cervical cancer screening continues to be a common recommendation, regardless of whether a screening history has been established or an HPV test has been ordered.

Association of cutaneous melanoma incidence with area-based socioeconomic indicators-United States, 2004-2006.

BACKGROUND Socioeconomic status (SES) has been associated with melanoma incidence and outcomes. Examination of the relationship between melanoma and SES at the national level in the United States is limited. Expanding knowledge of this association is needed to improve early detection and eliminate disparities. OBJECTIVE We sought to provide a detailed description of cutaneous melanoma incidence and stage of disease in relationship to area-based socioeconomic measures including poverty level, education, income, and unemployment in the United States. METHODS Invasive cutaneous melanoma data reported by 44 population-based central cancer registries for 2004 to 2006 were merged with county-level SES estimates from the US Census Bureau. Age-adjusted incidence rates were calculated by gender, race/ethnicity, poverty, education, income, unemployment, and metro/urban/rural status using software. Poisson multilevel mixed models were fitted, and incidence density ratios were calculated by stage for area-based SES measures, controlling for age, gender, and state random effects. RESULTS Counties with lower poverty, higher education, higher income, and lower unemployment had higher age-adjusted melanoma incidence rates for both early and late stage. In multivariate models, SES effects persisted for early-stage but not late-stage melanoma incidence. LIMITATIONS Individual-level measures of SES were unavailable, and estimates were based on county-level SES measures. CONCLUSION Our findings show that melanoma incidence in the United States is associated with aggregate county-level measures of high SES. Analyses using finer-level SES measures, such as individual or census tract level, are needed to provide more precise estimates of these associations.

Primary care provider practices and beliefs related to cervical cancer screening with the HPV test in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

OBJECTIVE Cervical cancer screening using the human papillomavirus (HPV) test and Pap test together (co-testing) is an option for average-risk women ≥ 30 years of age. With normal co-test results, screening intervals can be extended. The study objective is to assess primary care provider practices, beliefs, facilitators and barriers to using the co-test and extending screening intervals among low-income women. METHOD Data were collected from 98 providers in 15 Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) clinics in Illinois between August 2009 and March 2010 using a cross-sectional survey. RESULTS 39% of providers reported using the co-test, and 25% would recommend a three-year screening interval for women with normal co-test results. Providers perceived greater encouragement for co-testing than for extending screening intervals with a normal co-test result. Barriers to extending screening intervals included concerns about patients not returning annually for other screening tests (77%), patient concerns about missing cancer (62%), and liability (52%). CONCLUSION Among FQHC providers in Illinois, few administered the co-test for screening and recommended appropriate intervals, possibly due to concerns over loss to follow-up and liability. Education regarding harms of too-frequent screening and false positives may be necessary to balance barriers to extending screening intervals.

Preventing cervical cancer

Three federal programs with the potential to reduce cervical cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality, especially among underserved populations, are administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), the Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program, and the Section 317 immunization grant program. The NBCCEDP provides breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services to uninsured and underinsured women. The VFC program and the Section 317 immunization grant program provide vaccines, including human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, to targeted populations at no cost for these vaccines. This article describes the programs, their histories, populations served, services offered, and roles in preventing cervical cancer through HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening. Potential long‐term reduction in healthcare costs resulting from HPV vaccination is also discussed. As an example of an initiative to vaccinate uninsured women aged 19‐26 years through a cancer services program, a state‐based effort that was recently launched in New York, is highlighted. Cancer 2008;113:(10 suppl):3004–12. Published 2008 by the American Cancer Society.

A systematic review of special events to promote breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in the United States

BackgroundSpecial events are common community-based strategies for health promotion. This paper presents findings from a systematic literature review on the impact of special events to promote breast, cervical or colorectal cancer education and screening.MethodsArticles in English that focused on special events involving breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer conducted in the U.S. and published between January 1990 and December 2011 were identified from seven databases: Ovid, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstract, Cochrane Libraries, and EconLit. Study inclusion and data extraction were independently validated by two researchers.ResultsOf the 20 articles selected for screening out of 1,409, ten articles on special events reported outcome data. Five types of special events were found: health fairs, parties, cultural events, special days, and plays. Many focused on breast cancer only, or in combination with other cancers. Reach ranged from 50–1732 participants. All special events used at least one evidence-based strategy suggested by the Community Guide to Preventive Services, such as small media, one-on-one education, and reducing structural barriers. For cancer screening as an outcome of the events, mammography screening rates ranged from 4.8% to 88%, Pap testing was 3.9%, and clinical breast exams ranged from 9.1% to 100%. For colorectal screening, FOBT ranged from 29.4% to 76%, and sigmoidoscopy was 100% at one event. Outcome measures included intentions to get screened, scheduled appointments, uptake of clinical exams, and participation in cancer screening.ConclusionsSpecial events found in the review varied and used evidence-based strategies. Screening data suggest that some special events can lead to increases in cancer screening, especially if they provide onsite screening services. However, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that special events are effective in increasing cancer screening. The heterogeneity of populations served, event activities, outcome variables assessed, and the reliance on self-report to measure screening limit conclusions. This study highlights the need for further research to determine the effectiveness of special events to increase cancer screening.

Cancer screening practices among physicians in the national breast and cervical cancer early detection program.

BACKGROUND The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides low-income, uninsured women with screening and diagnostic services for breast and cervical cancer. Our study was conducted to describe the demographic and practice characteristics of participating and nonparticipating physicians, as well as their beliefs, adoption of new screening technologies, and recommendations for breast and cervical cancer screening. METHODS From a 2006-2007 nationally representative survey, we identified 1,111 practicing primary care physicians who provide breast and cervical cancer screenings and assessed their recommendations using clinical vignettes related to screening initiation, frequency, and cessation. Responses of physicians participating in the NBCCEDP were compared with those from nonparticipating physicians. RESULTS Of the physicians surveyed, 15% reported participation in the NBCCEDP, 65% were not participants, and 20% were not sure or did not respond to this question. Program physicians were significantly more likely to practice in multispecialty settings, in a rural location, and in a hospital or clinic setting and had more patients who were female and insured by Medicaid or uninsured compared with nonprogram physicians. Beliefs about the effectiveness of screening tools or procedures in reducing breast or cervical cancer mortality were similar by program participation. Adoption of new technologies, including digital mammography and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, and making guideline-consistent recommendations for screening initiation, frequency, and cessation did not differ significantly by program participation. CONCLUSIONS Although there may be differences in physician characteristics and practice settings, the beliefs and screening practices for both breast and cervical cancer are similar between program and nonprogram providers.

Cervical Cancer Screening Among Young Adult Women in the United States

Background: Cervical cancer screening guidelines have evolved significantly in the last decade for young adult women, with current recommendations promoting later initiation and longer intervals. Methods: Using self-reported cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 2000–2010 data, trends in Papanicolaou (Pap) testing among women ages 18–29 years were examined. NHIS 2010 data were used to investigate age at first Pap test (N = 2,198), time since most recent Pap test (n = 1,622), and predictors of Pap testing within the last 12 months (n = 1,622). Results: The percentage of 18-year-olds who reported ever having a Pap test significantly decreased from 49.9% in 2000 to 37.9% in 2010. Mean age at first Pap test in 2010 was significantly younger for non-Hispanic black women (16.9 years), women < high school education (16.9 years), women who received the HPV vaccine (17.1 years), and women who have ever given birth (17.3 years). The majority reported their last Pap test within the previous 12 months (73.1%). Usual source of healthcare (OR, 2.31) and current birth control use (OR, 1.64) significantly increased chances of having a Pap test within the previous 12 months. Conclusions: From 2000 to 2010, there was a gradual decline in Pap test initiation among 18-year-olds; however, in 2010, many women reported ≤12 months since last screening. Evidence-based guidelines should be promoted, as screening young adult women for cervical cancer more frequently than recommended can cause considerable harms. Impact: A baseline of cervical cancer screening among young adult women in the United States to assess adherence to evidence-based screening guidelines. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(4); 580–8. ©2013 AACR.

Primary care providers human papillomavirus vaccine recommendations for the medically underserved: a pilot study in U.S. Federally Qualified Health Centers.

INTRODUCTION In the United States, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) are safety-net clinics that provide cervical cancer screening and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to medically underserved women, some of whom may be at risk for developing cervical cancer. National guidelines recommend against using screening test results or sexual history to determine vaccine eligibility. Documenting HPV vaccine recommendations and beliefs of primary care providers in FQHCs may aid in promoting evidence-based practices and prioritizing health interventions for vulnerable populations. METHODS Between 2009 and 2010, we collected data from 98 primary care providers in 15 FQHC clinics in IL, USA using a cross-sectional survey. Questions assessed provider and practice characteristics, HPV vaccine recommendations, and providers belief about whether their screening and management procedures would change for women who were vaccinated. RESULTS 93% of providers recommended the HPV vaccine, most frequently for females aged 13-26 years (98%). Some providers reported sometimes to always using HPV test results (12%), Pap test results (7%), and number of sexual partners (33%) to determine vaccine eligibility. More than half of providers (55%) reported they will not change their screening and management practices for vaccinated females, yet believe vaccination will yield fewer abnormal Pap tests (71%) and referrals for colposcopy (74%). CONCLUSION Study providers routinely recommended the HPV vaccine for their patients. However, providers made fewer recommendations to vaccinate females ages 9-12 years (which includes the target age for vaccination) compared to older females, and used pre-vaccination assessments not recommended by U.S. guidelines, such as screening test results and number of sexual partners. In order to maximize the public health benefit of the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, adherence to guidelines is necessary, especially in settings that provide care to medically underserved women.