Communicating Cervical Cancer Screening Results in Light of New Guidelines: Clinical Practices at Federally Qualified Health Centers

被引:6
作者
Head, Katharine J. [1 ]
Johnson, Nicole L. [1 ]
Scott, Susanna Foxworthy [1 ,2 ]
Zimet, Gregory D. [3 ]
机构
[1] Indiana Univ Purdue Univ Indianapolis, Dept Commun Studies, 307C Cavanagh Hall, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
[2] Indiana Univ Sch Med, Div Clin Pharmacol, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
[3] Indiana Univ Sch Med, Div Adolescent Med, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
FOLLOW-UP; HUMAN-PAPILLOMAVIRUS; WOMEN; LITERACY; PATIENT; KNOWLEDGE; BARRIERS; BELIEFS; CARE; PREVENTION;
D O I
10.1080/10410236.2019.1593079
中图分类号
G2 [信息与知识传播];
学科分类号
05 ; 0503 ;
摘要
New guidelines for cervical cancer screening (CCS) incorporate both HPV and Pap tests, and there is a need to understand communication of these cotesting results to patients, especially in at-risk populations disproportionally affected by cervical cancer. This study used computer-assisted telephone interviews in 2017 at 51 federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in Indiana to evaluate the characteristics of clinical communication CCS results to women. Results revealed that clinical communication practices varied on channel, timing, and content. Almost half of the clinics (n = 23, 45%) communicate results to patients by phone. Most clinics (n = 47, 92%) notify patients of results in two weeks or less. For cotesting, 70% (n = 36) always communicate Pap/HPV results at the same time. The majority of clinics (n = 42, 82%) explain the type of abnormal Pap test, while only 43% (n = 22) discuss the cervical cancer risk as indicated by the HPV test result. Even though 98% (n = 48) of participants rated their communication strategy as effective, qualitatively participants acknowledged difficulties in communicating cotesting results with their often transient and low health literate patients populations. These results indicate considerable variation and potential deficits in clinical communication of cotesting results in FQHCs, but several promising communication strategies were identified that may inform improved screening communication for other clinics.
引用
收藏
页码:815 / 821
页数:7
相关论文
共 51 条
[21]  
Gielen AndreaCarlson., 2008, Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice, V4, P407
[22]   Cervical screening result communication: a focus-group investigation of English women's experiences and needs [J].
Goldsmith, M. R. ;
Austoker, J. ;
Marsh, G. ;
Kehoe, S. T. ;
Bankhead, C. R. .
QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2008, 17 (05) :334-338
[23]  
Hatcher J, 2011, J HEALTH CARE POOR U, V22, P176, DOI 10.1353/hpu.2011.0021
[24]   Patient knowledge and beliefs as barriers to extending cervical cancer screening intervals in Federally Qualified Health Centers [J].
Hawkins, Nikki A. ;
Benard, Vicki B. ;
Greek, April ;
Roland, Katherine B. ;
Manninen, Diane ;
Saraiya, Mona .
PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2013, 57 (05) :641-645
[25]  
Head K. J., 2017, Journal of Communication in Healthcare, V10, P37, DOI 10.1080/17538068.2017.
[26]  
Indiana Primary Health Care Association, 2016, FACTS FIG
[27]  
Indiana Sate Department of Health, 2015, IND CANC FACTS FIG 2
[28]   Personal meaning of human papillomavirus and pap test results in adolescent and young adult women [J].
Kahn, Jessica A. ;
Slap, Gail B. ;
Bernstein, David I. ;
Tissot, Abbigail M. ;
Kollar, Linda M. ;
Hillard, Paula A. ;
Rosenthal, Susan L. .
HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY, 2007, 26 (02) :192-200
[29]   Current practice patterns in cervical cancer screening in Indiana [J].
King, Nicole R. ;
Kasper, Kelly M. ;
Daggy, Joanne K. ;
Edmonds, Brownsyne Tucker .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2014, 210 (03)
[30]  
Kutner M., 2006, 2006483 NCES