Top

Published in:

01-11-2008 | Original Article

Does Patient Health and Hysterectomy Status Influence Cervical Cancer Screening in Older Women?

Authors: Helen I. Meissner, PhD, Jasmin A. Tiro, PhD, MPH, David Haggstrom, MD, MAS, Grace Lu-Yao, PhD, Nancy Breen, PhD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 11/2008

Abstract

Background

Decisions to screen older patients for cancer are complicated by the fact that aging populations are heterogeneous with respect to life expectancy.

Objective

To examine national trends in the association between cervical cancer screening and age, health and hysterectomy status.

Design and participants

Cross-sectional data from the 1993, 1998, 2000, and 2005 National Health Interview Surveys (NHIS) were used to examine trends in screening for women age 35–64 and 65+ years of age. We investigated whether health is associated with Pap testing among older women using the 2005 NHIS (N = 3,073). We excluded women with a history of cervical cancer or who had their last Pap because of a problem.

Measurements

The dependent variable was having a Pap test within the past 3 years. Independent variables included three measures of respondent health (the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), general health status and having a chronic disability), hysterectomy status and sociodemographic factors.

Main results

NHIS data showed a consistent pattern of lower Pap use among older women (65+) compared to younger women regardless of hysterectomy status. Screening also was lower among older women who reported being in fair/poor health, having a chronic disability, or a higher CCI score (4+). Multivariate models showed that over 50% of older women reporting poor health status or a chronic disability and 47% with a hysterectomy still had a recent Pap.

Conclusions

Though age, health and hysterectomy status appear to influence Pap test use, current national data suggest that there still may be overutilization and inappropriate screening of older women.

Walter LC, Lindquist K, Covinsky KE. Relationship between health status and use of screening mammography and Papanicolaou smears among women older than 70 years of age. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:681–8.PubMed

Walter LC, Covinsky KE. Cancer screening in elderly patients: a framework for individualized decision making. J Am Med Assoc. 2001;285:2750–6.CrossRef

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2006. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspstopics.htm#Ctopics. Accessed August 18, 2008.

Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2006. CA-Cancer J Clin. 2006;56:11–25.PubMedCrossRef

Yasmeen SM, Romano PSMM, Pettinger MM, et al. Incidence of cervical cytological abnormalities with aging in the women’s health initiative: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:410–9.PubMed

Hewitt M, Devesa SS, Breen N. Cervical cancer screening among U.S. women: analyses of the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Prev Med. 2004;39:270–8.PubMedCrossRef

Swan J, Breen N, Coates RJ, Rimer BK, Lee NC. Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States: results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer. 2003;97:1528–40.PubMedCrossRef

Kiefe CI, Funkhouser E, Fouad MN, May DS. Chronic disease as a barrier to breast and cervical cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13:357–65.PubMedCrossRef

Kagay CR, Quale C, Smith-Bindman R. Screening mammography in the American elderly. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31:142–9.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Mandelblatt JS, Gold K, O’Malley AS, et al. Breast and cervix cancer screening among multiethnic women: role of age, health, and source of care. Prev Med. 1999;28:418–25.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Sirovich BE, Welch HG. The frequency of Pap smear screening in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:243–50.PubMedCrossRef

12.

National Research Council. Toward a national health care survey. A data system for 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1992.

13.

Botman SL, Moore TF, Moriarity CL, Parsons VL. Design and estimation for the National Health Interview Survey, 1995–2004. Vital Health Statistics. 2000;2.

14.

Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav. 1995;36:1–10.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Phillips KA, Morrison KR, Andersen R, Aday LA. Understanding the context of healthcare utilization: assessing environmental and provider-related variables in the behavioral model of utilization. Health Serv Res. 1998;33:571–96.PubMed

16.

Coughlin SS, Breslau ES, Thompson T, Benard VB. Physician recommendation for papanicolaou testing among US women, 2000. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:1143–8.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.PubMedCrossRef

18.

D’Hoore W, Sicotte C, Tilquin C. Risk adjustment in outcome assessment: the Charlson comorbidity index. Methods of Information in Medicine. 1993;32:382–7.PubMed

19.

Sundararajan V, Henderson T, Perry C, Muggivan A, Quan H, Ghali WA. New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:1288–94.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Birim O, Maat APWM, Kappetein AP, van Meerbeeck JP, Damhuis RAM, Bogers AJJC. Validation of the Charlson comorbidity index in patients with operated primary non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg. 2003;23:30–4.CrossRef

21.

Quan HM, Parsons GAR, Ghali WAM. Validity of information on comorbidity derived from ICD-9-CCM administrative data. Med Care. 2002;40:675–85.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Singh BM, Bhaya MM, Stern JM, et al. Validation of the Charlson comorbidity index in patients with head and neck cancer: a multi-institutional study. Laryngoscope. 1997;107:1469–75.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Chaudhry SM, Jin LM, Meltzer DM. Use of a self-report-generated Charlson comorbidity index for predicting mortality. Med Care. 2005;43:607–15.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Rakowski W, Meissner H, Vernon SW, Breen N, Rimer B, Clark MA. Correlates of repeat and recent mammography for women ages 45 to 75 in the 2002 to 2003 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 2003). Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15:2093–101.CrossRef

25.

Clark MA, Rakowski W, Ehrich B. Breast and cervical cancer screening: associations with personal, spouse’s and combined smoking status. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2000;9:513–6.

26.

Rakowski W, Clark MA, Ehrich B. Smoking and cancer screening for women ages 42–75: associations in the 1900–1994 National Health Interview Surveys. Prev Med. 1999;29:487–95.PubMedCrossRef

27.

SUDAAN user’s manual, release 9.0.1. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, 2005.

28.

Korn EL, Graubard BI. Analysis of Health Surveys. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1999.

29.

Vernon SW, Tiro JA, Meissner HI. Behavioral research in cancer screening. In: Miller S, Bowen DJ, Croyle RT, Rowland JH, eds. Handbook of Behavioral Science and Cancer. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2008.

30.

Hiatt RA, Klabunde C, Breen N, Swan J, Ballard-Barbash R. Cancer screening practices from national health interview surveys: past, present, and future. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1837–46.PubMed

31.

Mandelblatt J, Lawrence W, Yi B, King J. The balance of harms, benefits, and costs of screening for cervical cancer in older women: the case for continued screening. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:245–7.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Lewis C, Kistler C, Amick H, et al. Older adults’ attitudes about continuing cancer screening later in life: a pilot study interviewing residents of two continuing care communities. BMC Geriatrics. 2006;6:10.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Sirovich BE, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. Screening for cervical cancer: will women accept less? Am J Med. 2005;118:151–8.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Heflin MT, Pollak KI, Kuchibhatla MN, Branch LG, Oddone EZ. The impact of health status on physicians’ intentions to offer cancer screening to older women. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006;61:844–50.PubMed

35.

Sirovich BE, Welch HG. Cervical cancer screening among women without a cervix. J Am Med Assoc. 2004;291:2990–3.CrossRef

36.

Iezzoni LI, McCarthy EP, Davis RB, Harris-David L, O’Day B. Use of screening and preventive services among women with disabilities. Am J Med Qual. 2001;16:135–44.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Lu-Yao G, Stukel TA, Yao SL. Prostate-specific antigen screening in elderly men. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1792–7.

38.

Klabunde CN, Potosky AL, Legler JM, Warren JL. Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:1258–67.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Vernon SW, Briss PA, Tiro JA, Warnecke RB. Some methodologic lessons learned from cancer screening research. Cancer. 2004;101:1131–45.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Zapka JG, Lemon SC. Interventions for patients, providers and health care organizations. Cancer. 2004;101:1165–87.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Wagner EH, Austin BT, Von Korff M. Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q. 1996;74:511–44.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Green LW, Kreuter MW. Health promotion planning. An educational and environmental approach. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company; 1991.

43.

Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, Gottlieb DJ, Lucas FL, Pinder EL. The implications of regional variations in medicare spending. Part 1: the content, quality, and accessibility of care. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:273–87.PubMed

44.

Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, Gottlieb DJ, Lucas FL, Pinder Et. The implications of regional variations in medicare spending. Part 2: health outcomes and satisfaction with care. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:288–98.PubMed

45.

Avorn, JL, Barrett, JF., Davey, PG, McEwen, SA, O’Brien, TF, Levy, SB. Antibiotic resistance: synthesis of recommendations by expert policy groups. World Health Organization; 2001.

46.

Melanson S, Szymanski T, Rogers S, et al. Utilization of arterial blood gas measurements in a large tertiary care hospital. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127:604–9.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Solomon DH, Hashimoto H, Daltroy L, Liang MH. Techniques to improve physicians’ use of diagnostic tests: a new conceptual framework. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1998;280:2020–7.CrossRef

48.

Volk RJ, Hawley ST, Kneuper S, et al. Trials of decision aids for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33:428–34.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Does Patient Health and Hysterectomy Status Influence Cervical Cancer Screening in Older Women?
Authors: Helen I. Meissner, PhD
Jasmin A. Tiro, PhD, MPH
David Haggstrom, MD, MAS
Grace Lu-Yao, PhD
Nancy Breen, PhD
Publication date: 01-11-2008
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 11/2008
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0775-x

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin

Prof. Florian Limbourg

Prof. Anoop Chauhan

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objective

Design and participants

Measurements

Main results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2008

Need for Randomized Controlled Sodium Reduction Trial

Questionable Hospital Chart Documentation Practices by Physicians

Reach and Impact of a Mass Media Event Among Vulnerable Patients: The Terri Schiavo Story

Self-neglect in Older Adults: a Primer for Clinicians

Addressing Physicians’ Impaired Communication Skills

The Relationship Between Measured Performance and Satisfaction with Care Among Clinically Complex Patients

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

At a glance: The STEP trials