Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T13:11:56.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patient assessment of tests to detect cervical cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2007

Karen Basen-Engquist ,
Rachel T. Fouladi ,
Scott B. Cantor ,
Eileen Shinn ,
Dawen Sui ,
Mathilde Sharman  and
Michele Follen
Karen Basen-Engquist
Affiliation:
The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Rachel T. Fouladi
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University
Scott B. Cantor
Affiliation:
The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Eileen Shinn
Affiliation:
The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Dawen Sui
Affiliation:
The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Mathilde Sharman
Affiliation:
The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Michele Follen
Affiliation:
The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: This study was undertaken to understand how women view characteristics of tests for cervical dysplasia, because these characteristics can affect patient decision-making about screening and follow-up.

Methods: We recruited women who participated in a clinical trial of optical spectroscopy for the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia and used conjoint analysis to assess the women's preferences concerning test attributes. One group of women had a history of an abnormal Papanicolaou smear (diagnostic sample), while the other group did not (screening sample). Participants rated pairs of test scenarios that varied on characteristics such as test sensitivity and painfulness. Based on their responses, the relative importance of test sensitivity, specificity, timing of results feedback and treatment, and pain were calculated, and a cluster analysis was done to identify subgroups of participants with different preference patterns.

Results: In the overall sample, sensitivity was the most important attribute, followed by timing, specificity, and pain. Cluster analysis revealed four distinct groups who placed varying importance on each characteristic. The participants in the cluster for which pain was the most important attribute were more likely to be diagnostic patients, non-white, and have low education levels. They also reported more anxiety and pain during the examination than participants in other clusters.

Conclusions: To continue to reduce morbidity and mortality from cervical cancer, developers of new testing procedures should take into account test attributes such as these, which may affect adherence to screening and diagnostic follow-up to further minimize morbidity and mortality from cervical cancer.

Keywords

Cervical cancer screeningColposcopyConjoint analysisDecision makingTechnology assessment
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 240 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Basen-Engquist, K, Shinn, EH, Warneke, C et al. , Patient distress and satisfaction with optical spectroscopy in cervical dysplasia detection. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 189: 1136–1142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Byrd, TL, Peterson, SK, Chavez, R et al. , Cervical cancer screening beliefs among young Hispanic women. Prev Med. 2004; 38: 192–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Carey, P, Gjerdingen, D. Follow-up of abnormal Papanicolaou smears among women of different races. J Family Pract. 1993; 37: 583–587.Google Scholar
4.Clifton, PA, Shaughnessy, AF, Andrew, S. Ineffectiveness of to- pical benzocaine spray during colposcopy. J Fam Pract. 1998; 46: 242–246.Google Scholar
5.Eaker, S, Adami, HO, Sparen, P. Attitudes to screening for cervical cancer: A population-based study in Sweden. Cancer Causes Control. 2001; 12: 519–528.Google Scholar
6.Ferris, DG, Dickman, ED, Litaker, MS et al. , Patient acceptance of fluorescent and reflective spectroscopy as a replacement test for the pap smear. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2003; 7: 294–298.Google Scholar
7.Ferris, DG, Kriegel, D, Cote, L et al. , Women's triage and management preferences for cervical cytologic reports demonstrating atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Arch Fam Med. 1997; 6: 348–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Hewitt, M, Devesa, SS, Breen, N. Cervical cancer screening among U.S. women: Analyses of the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Prev Med. 2004; 39: 270–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Jennings, K. Getting a Pap smear: Focus group responses of African-American and Latina women. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1997; 24: 827–835.Google Scholar
10.Khanna, N, Phillips, MD. Adherence to care plan in women with abnormal Papanicolaou smears: A review of barriers and interventions. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2001; 14: 123–130.Google Scholar
11.Lerman, C, Caputo, C, Brody, D. Factors associated with inadequate cervical cancer screening among lower income primary care patients. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1990; 3: 151–156.Google Scholar
12.Lerman, C, Daly, M, Masny, A, Balshem, A. Attitudes about genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol. 1994; 12: 843–850.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Lerman, C, Miller, SM, Scarborough, R et al. , Adverse psychologic consequences of positive cytologic cervical screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991; 165: 658–662.Google Scholar
14.McKee, MD, Lurio, J, Marantz, P et al. , Barriers to follow-up of abnormal Papanicolaou smears in an urban community health center. Arch Fam Med. 1999; 8: 129–134.Google Scholar
15.Michielutte, R, Diseker, R, Young, L et al. , Noncompliance in screening follow-up among family planning clinic patients with cervical dysplasia. Prev Med. 1985; 14: 248–258.Google Scholar
16.Miller, SM, Mangan, CE. Interacting effects of information and coping style in adapting to gynecologic stress: Should the doctor tell all? J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983; 45: 223–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Miller, SM, Siejak, KK, Schroeder, CM et al. , Enhancing adherence following abnormal pap smears among low-income minority women: A preventive telephone counseling strategy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997; 89: 703–708.Google Scholar
18.Palmer, AG, Tucker, S, Warren, R et al. , Understanding women's responses to treatment for cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia. Br J Clin Psychol. 1993; 32: 101–112.Google Scholar
19.Peterson, N, Han, J, Freund, K. Inadequate follow-up for abnormal pap smears in an urban population. J Natl Med Assoc. 2003; 95: 825–832.Google Scholar
20.Richardson, PH, Doherty, I, Wolfe, CDA et al. , Evaluation of cognitive-behavioral counselling for the distress associated with an abnormal cervical smear result. Br J Health Psychol. 1996; 1: 327–338.Google Scholar
21.Rodney, WM, Huff, M, Euans, D et al. , Colposcopy in family practice: Pilot studies of pain prophylaxis and patient volume. Fam Pract Res J. 1992; 12: 91–98.Google ScholarPubMed
22.Ryan, M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: An application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med. 1999; 48: 535–546.Google Scholar
23.Sassi, F, McDaid, D, Ricciardi, W. Conjoint analysis of preferences for cardiac risk assessment in primary care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005; 21: 211–218.Google Scholar
24.Shinn, EH, Basen-Engquist, K, Le, T et al. , Distress after an abnormal Pap smear result: Scale development and psychometric evaluation. Prev Med. 2004; 30: 404–412.Google Scholar
25.Singh, J, Cuttler, L, Shin, M et al. , Medical decision-making and the patient: Understanding preference patterns for growth hormone therapy using conjoint analysis. Med Care. 1998; 36: AS31–AS45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Spielberger, CD, Gorsuch, RL, Lushene, R et al. , State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Adults: Sampler Set Manual, Test, Scoring Key. Vol. 1 Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc; 1983.Google Scholar
27.Wainwright, D. More ‘con’ than ‘joint’: Problems with the application of conjoint analysis to participatory healthcare decision making. Crit Public Health. 2003; 13: 373–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Yabroff, KR, Kerner, JF, Mandelblatt, JS. Effectiveness of interventions to improve follow-up after abnormal cervical cancer screening. Prev Med. 2000; 31: 429–439.Google Scholar
29.Yauger, BJ, Rodriguez, M, Parker, MF. Default from colposcopy and loop excision electrocautery procedure appointments in a military clinic. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2005; 9: 78–81.Google Scholar