Does mailing unsolicited HPV self-sampling kits to women overdue for cervical cancer screening impact uptake of other preventive health services in a United States integrated delivery system?
Does mailing unsolicited HPV self-sampling kits to women overdue for cervical cancer screening impact uptake of other preventive health services in a United States integrated delivery system?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106896
复制
发表时间：
2022-01
影响因子：
5.1
通讯作者：
Winer RL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kariya H;Buist DSM;Anderson ML;Lin J;Gao H;Ko LK;Winer RL
逾期接受宫颈癌筛查的妇女往往还有其他预防保健缺口。我们检查了邮寄主动提供的人类乳头瘤病毒(HPV)自我采样试剂盒以增加宫颈癌筛查是否影响了妇女接受其他预防服务的情况：乳房X光检查、结直肠癌(CRC)筛查、流感疫苗接种、抑郁症筛查和糖尿病HbA1c监测。从2014-2016年间，16,590名筛查不足的女性被随机分配，在Kaiser Permanente Washington内部收到邮寄的工具包或日常护理Pap提醒。我们使用Logistic回归估计干预组与对照组之间以及干预组内12个月内接受预防性服务的优势比(比较退还药盒的人与参加Pap的人与不退还Pap的人)，调整人口统计学变量的模型。在接受预防服务方面，干预组与对照组无显著差异：钼靶摄影OR=1.01(95%可信区间：0.88-1.17)，结直肠癌筛查OR=0.98(0.86-1.13)，流感疫苗接种OR=0.99(0.92-1.06)，抑郁筛查OR=1.07(0.99-1.16)，糖化血红蛋白OR=0.84(0.62-1.13)。在干预组中，完成宫颈癌筛查的妇女的预防服务摄取率高于未完成筛查的妇女，接受PAP筛查的妇女效果更好：乳房X光检查OR=11.81(8.11-17.19)，CRC筛查OR=7.31(5.57-9.58)，流感疫苗接种OR=2.06(1.82-2.32)，抑郁筛查OR=1.79(1.57-2.05)，HbA1c OR=3.35(1.49-7.52)；试剂盒与空白对照：钼靶摄影OR=2.26(1.56-3.26)，结直肠癌筛查OR=5.05(3.57-7.14)，流感疫苗接种OR=1.67(1.41-1.98)，抑郁筛查OR=1.09(0.89-1.33)，糖化血红蛋白OR=1.23(0.57-2.65)。向筛查不足的妇女邮寄HPV自我采样试剂盒不会对其他预防服务的接受产生负面影响。然而，在接受宫颈癌门诊筛查的妇女中，总体预防服务接受率最高。
Women overdue for cervical cancer screening often have other preventive care gaps. We examined whether mailing unsolicited human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kits to increase cervical cancer screening impacted receipt of other preventive services women were due for: mammography, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, influenza vaccination, depression screening, and diabetic HbA1c monitoring. From 2014–2016, 16,590 underscreened women were randomized to receive a mailed kit or usual care Pap reminders within Kaiser Permanente Washington. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of preventive services receipt within 12-months between the intervention vs. control arms, and within the intervention arm (comparing those returning a kit vs. attending Pap vs. nothing), adjusting models for demographic variables. There were no significant between-arm differences in uptake of any of the preventive services: intervention vs. control: mammography OR=1.01 (95% confidence interval:0.88–1.17), CRC screening OR=0.98 (0.86–1.13), influenza vaccination OR=0.99 (0.92–1.06), depression screening OR=1.07 (0.99–1.16), HbA1c OR=0.84 (0.62–1.13). Within the intervention arm, preventive services uptake was higher in women who completed cervical cancer screening vs. did not, with stronger effects for women who attended Pap: Pap vs. nothing: mammography OR=11.81 (8.11–17.19), CRC screening OR=7.31 (5.57–9.58), influenza vaccination OR=2.06 (1.82–2.32), depression screening OR=1.79 (1.57–2.05), HbA1c OR=3.35 (1.49–7.52); kit vs. nothing: mammography OR=2.26 (1.56–3.26), CRC screening OR=5.05 (3.57–7.14), influenza vaccination OR=1.67 (1.41–1.98), depression screening OR=1.09 (0.89–1.33), HbA1c OR=1.23 (0.57–2.65). Mailing HPV self-sampling kits to underscreened women did not negatively impact uptake of other preventive services. However, overall preventive service uptake was the highest among women who attended in-clinic cervical cancer screening.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
12.7
作者：
JANERICH, DT;HADJIMICHAEL, O;POLEDNAK, AP
通讯作者：
POLEDNAK, AP
影响因子：
10.3
作者：
Leyden, WA;Manos, MM;Taplin, SH
通讯作者：
Taplin, SH
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
Kinney, W;Sung, HY;Hiatt, RA
通讯作者：
Hiatt, RA
影响因子：
5.1
作者：
Bowles, Erin J. Aiello;Gao, Hongyuan;Buist, Diana S. M.
通讯作者：
Buist, Diana S. M.
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Lo, Siu Hing;Waller, Jo;von Wagner, Christian
通讯作者：
von Wagner, Christian