title: Barriers to adoption of recent technology in cervical screening.
abstract: 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.
authors: Department of Pathology, Division of Anatomic Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA. djhala@path.uab.edu
authors: Darshana
authors: D
authors: Jhala
authors: Isam
authors: I
authors: Eltoum
references: Curr Opin Oncol. 2002 Sep;14(5):505-11
references: 12192269
references: Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004 Jan;128(1):17-22
references: 14692817
references: Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Aug;90(2):278-84
references: 9241308
references: Health Educ Q. 1992 Summer;19(2):157-75
references: 1618625
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Dec;104(6):1355-61
references: 15572502
references: CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 Mar-Apr;57(2):105-11
references: 17392387
references: JAMA. 1998 Feb 11;279(6):435-9
references: 9466635
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Apr;103(4):619-31
references: 15051550
references: Cancer. 2002 Apr 25;96(2):67-73
references: 11954023
references: CA Cancer J Clin. 2006 Mar-Apr;56(2):106-30
references: 16514137
references: Cytojournal. 2005 Sep 15;2:15
references: 16164754
references: Gynecol Oncol. 2003 Jul;90(1):137-44
references: 12821354
references: Lancet. 2006 Jan 14;367(9505):122-32
references: 16413876
references: Am J Infect Control. 1989 Aug;17(4):202-7
references: 2774292
references: Cancer. 1999 Jun 25;87(3):105-12
references: 10385440
references: J Reprod Med. 2000 Jan;45(1):11-6
references: 10664941
references: Int J Cancer. 2006 Feb 15;118(4):957-62
references: 16152600
references: Am J Clin Pathol. 1994 Feb;101(2):215-9
references: 8116578
references: J Fam Pract. 2007 Feb;56(2 Suppl Vaccines):S61-9
references: 17270112
references: Cytopathology. 2006 Apr;17(2):60-4
references: 16548989
references: Cytopathology. 2006 Apr;17(2):82-5
references: 16548992
references: Cancer. 1965 Nov;18(11):1474-8
references: 5844165
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Aug;185(2):308-17
references: 11518884
references: Cancer. 2003 Dec 25;99(6):331-5
references: 14681939
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Oct 5;97(19):1407-27
references: 16204691
references: Am J Manag Care. 2006 Dec;12(17 Suppl):S484-91
references: 17203992
references: Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao. 2001 Dec;23(6):638-41
references: 12901114
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Jan 1;95(1):46-52
references: 12509400
references: Acta Cytol. 1998 Jan-Feb;42(1):189-97
references: 9479339