Barriers to adoption of recent technology in cervical screening.
The Pap smear is one of the modern success stories in the field of preventive medicine. Since its introduction as a screening test, there has been a dramatic reduction in the incidence of cervical cancer. However, the search for a better screening test continues. The new technologies, including liquid-based cytology (LBC), Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) testing and automated or machine-assisted screening have been introduced. However, there is continuous debate about whether society's limited resources are better spent on reaching the underserved rather than on these technologies. Another question is whether these technologies create yet another kind of disparity in delivering preventive care. For example, despite the wide use of LBC (99% of tests submitted to our laboratory are LBC), conventional Pap smears are still used to screen/follow up some women. It is not clear why some providers continue to prefer conventional smear over LBC and what are the barriers for adopting LBC in cervical cancer screening. We hypothesize the lower cost of conventional compared to LBC Pap testing, patient's lower socio-economic indices, a patient's medical history and provider's subspecialty/training all appear to play a role in the choice of using conventional Pap testing rather than LBC. Unintentionally, this choice results in repeat testing, delayed treatment and potentially higher costs than intended. The ultimate goal of this review article is to understand and explore possible barriers and disparities to adopting new technology in cancer screening.
Jhala
Darshana
D
Department of Pathology, Division of Anatomic Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA. djhala@path.uab.edu
Eltoum
Isam
I
Curr Opin Oncol. 2002 Sep;14(5):505-11
12192269
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004 Jan;128(1):17-22
14692817
Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Aug;90(2):278-84
9241308
Health Educ Q. 1992 Summer;19(2):157-75
1618625
Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Dec;104(6):1355-61
15572502
CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 Mar-Apr;57(2):105-11
17392387
JAMA. 1998 Feb 11;279(6):435-9
9466635
Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Apr;103(4):619-31
15051550
Cancer. 2002 Apr 25;96(2):67-73
11954023
CA Cancer J Clin. 2006 Mar-Apr;56(2):106-30
16514137
Cytojournal. 2005 Sep 15;2:15
16164754
Gynecol Oncol. 2003 Jul;90(1):137-44
12821354
Lancet. 2006 Jan 14;367(9505):122-32
16413876
Am J Infect Control. 1989 Aug;17(4):202-7
2774292
Cancer. 1999 Jun 25;87(3):105-12
10385440
J Reprod Med. 2000 Jan;45(1):11-6
10664941
Int J Cancer. 2006 Feb 15;118(4):957-62
16152600
Am J Clin Pathol. 1994 Feb;101(2):215-9
8116578
J Fam Pract. 2007 Feb;56(2 Suppl Vaccines):S61-9
17270112
Cytopathology. 2006 Apr;17(2):60-4
16548989
Cytopathology. 2006 Apr;17(2):82-5
16548992
Cancer. 1965 Nov;18(11):1474-8
5844165
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Aug;185(2):308-17
11518884
Cancer. 2003 Dec 25;99(6):331-5
14681939
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Oct 5;97(19):1407-27
16204691
Am J Manag Care. 2006 Dec;12(17 Suppl):S484-91
17203992
Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao. 2001 Dec;23(6):638-41
12901114
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Jan 1;95(1):46-52
12509400
Acta Cytol. 1998 Jan-Feb;42(1):189-97
9479339