Failure to follow up abnormal test results associated with cervical cancer in primary and ambulatory care: a systematic review.
Abnormal test results
Cervical cancer
Human papilloma virus
Inadequate follow-up
Primary care
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Jul 2023
12 Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
20
12
2022
accepted:
17
06
2023
medline:
14
7
2023
pubmed:
13
7
2023
entrez:
12
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cervical cancer is a preventable and treatable form of cancer yet continues to be the fourth most common cancer among women globally. Primary care is the first point of contact most patients have with health services and is where most cancer prevention and early detection occur. Inadequate follow-up of abnormal test results for cervical abnormalities in primary care can lead to suboptimal patient outcomes including higher mortality and decreased quality of life. To explore the magnitude of and factors associated with, inadequate follow-up of test results for cervical abnormalities in primary and ambulatory care. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL were searched for peer-reviewed literature from 2000-2022, excluding case-studies, grey literature, and systematic reviews. Studies were included if they reported on patients aged ≥ 18 years with no previous cancer diagnosis, in a primary care/ambulatory setting. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical appraisal checklists, appropriate to the study design. A segregated methodology was used to perform a narrative synthesis, maintaining the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research. We included 27 publications reporting on 26 studies in our review; all were conducted in high-income countries. They included 265,041 participants from a variety of ambulatory settings such as family medicine, primary care, women's services, and colposcopy clinics. Rates of inadequate follow-up ranged from 4 to 75%. Studies reported 41 different factors associated with inadequate follow-up. Personal factors associated with inadequate follow-up included younger age, lower education, and socioeconomic status. Psychological factors were reported by only 3/26 studies and 2/3 found no significant association. System protective factors included the presence of a regular primary care provider and direct notification of abnormal test results. This review describes inadequate follow-up of abnormal cervical abnormalities in primary care. Prevalence varied and the evidence about causal factors is unclear. Most interventions evaluated were effective in decreasing inadequate follow-up. Examples of effective interventions were appointment reminders via telephone, direct notification of laboratory results, and HPV self-sampling. Even though rates of cervical cancer have decreased over the years, there is a lack of information on factors affecting follow-up in primary care and ambulatory settings, particularly in low and middle-income countries. This information is crucial if we are to achieve WHO's interim targets by 2030, and hope to avert 62 million cervical cancer deaths by 2120. PROSPERO ID CRD42021250136.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Cervical cancer is a preventable and treatable form of cancer yet continues to be the fourth most common cancer among women globally. Primary care is the first point of contact most patients have with health services and is where most cancer prevention and early detection occur. Inadequate follow-up of abnormal test results for cervical abnormalities in primary care can lead to suboptimal patient outcomes including higher mortality and decreased quality of life.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
To explore the magnitude of and factors associated with, inadequate follow-up of test results for cervical abnormalities in primary and ambulatory care.
METHODS
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL were searched for peer-reviewed literature from 2000-2022, excluding case-studies, grey literature, and systematic reviews. Studies were included if they reported on patients aged ≥ 18 years with no previous cancer diagnosis, in a primary care/ambulatory setting. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical appraisal checklists, appropriate to the study design. A segregated methodology was used to perform a narrative synthesis, maintaining the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We included 27 publications reporting on 26 studies in our review; all were conducted in high-income countries. They included 265,041 participants from a variety of ambulatory settings such as family medicine, primary care, women's services, and colposcopy clinics. Rates of inadequate follow-up ranged from 4 to 75%. Studies reported 41 different factors associated with inadequate follow-up. Personal factors associated with inadequate follow-up included younger age, lower education, and socioeconomic status. Psychological factors were reported by only 3/26 studies and 2/3 found no significant association. System protective factors included the presence of a regular primary care provider and direct notification of abnormal test results.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
This review describes inadequate follow-up of abnormal cervical abnormalities in primary care. Prevalence varied and the evidence about causal factors is unclear. Most interventions evaluated were effective in decreasing inadequate follow-up. Examples of effective interventions were appointment reminders via telephone, direct notification of laboratory results, and HPV self-sampling. Even though rates of cervical cancer have decreased over the years, there is a lack of information on factors affecting follow-up in primary care and ambulatory settings, particularly in low and middle-income countries. This information is crucial if we are to achieve WHO's interim targets by 2030, and hope to avert 62 million cervical cancer deaths by 2120.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
PROSPERO ID CRD42021250136.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37438686
doi: 10.1186/s12885-023-11082-z
pii: 10.1186/s12885-023-11082-z
pmc: PMC10337158
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
653Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Am Board Fam Pract. 2001 May-Jun;14(3):172-7
pubmed: 11355048
Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 29;10(1):89
pubmed: 33781348
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jan 4;5(1):e2143582
pubmed: 35040970
Hong Kong Med J. 2017 Feb;23(1):28-34
pubmed: 27966432
Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2021 Sep 07;16:100265
pubmed: 34590066
J Natl Med Assoc. 2003 Sep;95(9):825-32
pubmed: 14527050
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013 Aug;35(8):723-729
pubmed: 24007708
Prev Med. 2005 Sep-Oct;41(3-4):741-8
pubmed: 16125761
Cancer Cytopathol. 2012 Apr 25;120(2):87-96
pubmed: 22367883
Milbank Q. 2012 Mar;90(1):5-37
pubmed: 22428690
Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Winter;1(1):2-10
pubmed: 18701931
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014 Oct;36(10):892-899
pubmed: 25375302
BJOG. 2012 Jan;119(1):7-19
pubmed: 21895959
Prev Med. 2000 Oct;31(4):429-39
pubmed: 11006069
Health Psychol. 2014 Apr;33(4):307-316
pubmed: 23730719
Br J Cancer. 2014 Aug 26;111(5):965-9
pubmed: 24992581
Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jun;105(6):1323-8
pubmed: 15932824
BJOG. 2020 Dec;127(13):1656-1663
pubmed: 32506627
Cancer Manag Res. 2020 Dec 09;12:12649-12655
pubmed: 33328762
Public Health Rep. 2009 Sep-Oct;124(5):733-44
pubmed: 19753952
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Br J Gen Pract. 2017 Aug;67(661):e580-e587
pubmed: 28716995
Prev Med Rep. 2018 Nov 23;13:118-125
pubmed: 30568870
J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Aug;21(8):829-34
pubmed: 16881942
J Prim Care Community Health. 2014 Oct;5(4):234-41
pubmed: 24718518
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002 Sep;22(5):537-9
pubmed: 12521425
Cancer Pract. 2002 May-Jun;10(3):122-9
pubmed: 11972566
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007 Apr;16(3):311-30
pubmed: 17439377
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012 Apr;17(2):110-8
pubmed: 22008712
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019 Dec;41 Suppl 2:S177-S180
pubmed: 31785651
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Sep;116:56-63
pubmed: 24980792
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Nov 28;69(689):e809-e818
pubmed: 31740460
J Am Board Fam Pract. 2003 May-Jun;16(3):188-203
pubmed: 12755245
BMJ. 2009 Jul 28;339:b2546
pubmed: 19638646
Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Oct;17(5):334-8
pubmed: 18842971
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2012 Oct;16(4):345-51
pubmed: 22622340
J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2001 Jan-Feb;30(1):80-8
pubmed: 11277165
Aust Fam Physician. 2013 Jan-Feb;42(1-2):65-8
pubmed: 23529466
BMJ. 2010 Mar 11;340:c1040
pubmed: 20223872
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2022 Apr;31(4):533-545
pubmed: 34652231
Cancer Causes Control. 2017 Dec;28(12):1393-1404
pubmed: 28986722
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Mar;20(3):319-321
pubmed: 30795952
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010(40):58-71
pubmed: 20386054
N Engl J Med. 2001 Jun 28;344(26):2021-5
pubmed: 11430334
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2013 May;22(5):426-31
pubmed: 23621746
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2007 Jan;11(1):35-8
pubmed: 17194949
Int J Cancer. 2018 May 1;142(9):1952-1958
pubmed: 29235108
Fam Community Health. 2005 Jan-Mar;28(1):79-89
pubmed: 15625508
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jun 18;18(12):
pubmed: 34207093
Am J Health Educ. 2013;44(6):293-298
pubmed: 24991653
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 May;68(3):199-216
pubmed: 29603147
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016 Nov;135(2):177-181
pubmed: 27451399