Objective

Guidelines recommend 3-year cervical cancer screening intervals to avoid unnecessary invasive procedures; however, regular testing remains critical. We evaluated trends in cervical cancer screening among low-income women receiving family planning-related services and their association with patient and provider characteristics.

Materials and methods

Using claims and enrollment data from California's publicly funded family planning program, we identified 540,026 women with a clinician visit at 216 sites between 2011 and 2015. We calculated guideline adherent cervical cancer testing rates for 6-month periods among women aged 21 to 24, 25 to 29, and 30 to 64 years. We also calculated guideline adherent chlamydia testing for women aged 21 to 24 years.

Results

Having a 3-year cervical cancer screening test declined for all age groups. The odds of cervical cancer screening declined for women aged 21 to 24 years by an estimated 11% every 6 months (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89-0.90), a significantly greater decline than for the other age groups. Among women aged 21 to 29 years, the decrease was significantly larger for Latina (ratio of ORs = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.95-0.96) and Spanish-speaking (ratio of ORs = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.95-0.96) women compared with non-Latina and non-Spanish-speaking women. A smaller decline was seen for chlamydia screening.

Conclusions

Changes in screening interval guidelines are associated with overall decreased screening. This trend was strongest among women aged 21 to 24 years, even as they continued to be screened appropriately for chlamydia, suggesting many missed opportunities. Efforts to reduce unnecessary cervical cancer screening should be monitored to maintain appropriate screening rates to avoid advanced-stage diagnoses and higher health care costs.

Introduction

This study sought to determine whether a provider mobile phone application, used with or without a patient educational tool accessed on a computer tablet, would promote adherence to guidelines for cervical cancer screening and management of abnormal cytology in young women.

Methods

The study was conducted as a prospective cohort study in which 14 Family Planning, Access, Care, and Treatment provider clinics were randomized to 1 of 2 arms: (1) provider mobile phone application only or (2) provider mobile phone application plus patient educational tool. The provider mobile phone application gave information to providers regarding cervical cancer screening and management of abnormal cytology. The patient educational tool accessed on a computer tablet was a patient-centered educational tool. Each arm was compared with clinic control groups (no intervention) in a 2:1 ratio (control:intervention). Claims data were used to calculate and compare 18-month cytology (Pap) and colposcopy rates before the intervention and during the 18 months using the Poisson mixed-effect regression model. A sensitivity analysis examined the differences in the rate of change between each arm and controls. The study took place between July 2015 and December 2016, and analysis was performed in 2019.

Results

The clinics randomized to the provider mobile phone application plus patient educational tool arm and their control group achieved similar 18-month Pap rates (0.52, 95% CI=0.37, 0.74 and 0.68, 95% CI=0.53, 0.86, respectively) as well as the provider mobile phone application arm and their control group (0.44, 95% CI=0.33, 0.58 and 0.41, 95% CI=0.34, 0.51; p-values >0.1). In the sensitivity analysis, the difference in the rate of change in Pap rates for the provider mobile phone application plus patient educational tool arm and their control group before and during the intervention was -0.22 and -0.09, respectively (p=0.02), but no differences were seen between the provider mobile phone application arm and their control group. No significant changes were observed for colposcopy rates.

Conclusions

Providing clinicians and patients with information on guidelines had no demonstrable effect on 18-month Pap and colposcopy rates in the regression model; however, results from the sensitivity analysis for the patient educational tool were encouraging.

Trial registration

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02270021.