Timing of Colposcopy and Risk of Cervical Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the association between time to colposcopy and risk of subsequent cervical cancer. METHODS: A longitudinal analysis of patients aged 21-79 years with an abnormal cervical cancer test result from health care systems in Texas, Massachusetts, and Washington was performed. The outcome was a cervical cancer diagnosis 12 months or more after the abnormal result. The primary analysis compared receipt of colposcopy within 3 months (91 days or less) with receipt of colposcopy at 3-12 months (92-365 days) and no colposcopy within 12 months of the abnormal test result; post hoc analyses compared colposcopy within 12 months (365 days or less) with no colposcopy within 12 months. Associations were assessed with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression controlling for age, risk status, result severity, and health care system. RESULTS: Of 17,541 patients, 53.3% of patients received colposcopy within 3 months, 22.2% received colposcopy in 3-12 months, and 24.6% had no colposcopy within 12 months. One hundred forty-seven patients were diagnosed with cervical cancer within 12 months and removed from subsequent analyses. Sixty-five patients (0.4%) were diagnosed with cervical cancer more than 1 year (366 days or more) after the abnormal Pap or human papillomavirus test result. The risk of cervical cancer detection more than 1 year after the abnormal test result was not different in patients who received colposcopy within 3-12 months (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% CI 0.54-2.12) and higher among patients with no colposcopy within 12 months (HR 2.34, 95% CI 1.33-4.14) compared with patients who had colposcopy within 3 months. Post hoc analyses showed that the risk of cervical cancer diagnosis was 2.29-fold higher among those without colposcopy within 12 months compared with those who received colposcopy within 12 months (95% CI 1.37-3.83); among patients with high-grade cytology results, the risk of cervical cancer detection among those without colposcopy within 12 months was 3.12-fold higher compared with those who received colposcopy within 12 months (95% CI 1.47-6.70). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in cervical cancer risk at more than 1 year between patients who received colposcopy within 3 months compared with those who received colposcopy within 3-12 months of an abnormal result. Patients who did not receive colposcopy within 12 months of an abnormal result had a higher risk of subsequent cervical cancer compared with those who received a colposcopy within 12 months.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Cervical Cancer Screening From Three U.S. Healthcare Settings.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to characterize racial and ethnic disparities in cervical cancer screening and follow-up of abnormal findings across 3 U.S. healthcare settings. METHODS: Data were from 2016 to 2019 and were analyzed in 2022, reflecting sites within the Multi-level Optimization of the Cervical Cancer Screening Process in Diverse Settings & Populations Research Center, part of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process consortium, including a safety-net system in the southwestern U.S., a northwestern mixed-model system, and a northeastern integrated healthcare system. Screening uptake was evaluated among average-risk patients (i.e., no previous abnormalities) by race and ethnicity as captured in the electronic health record, using chi-square tests. Among patients with abnormal findings requiring follow-up, the proportion receiving colposcopy or biopsy within 6 months was reported. Multivariable regression was conducted to assess how clinical, socioeconomic, and structural characteristics mediate observed differences. RESULTS: Among 188,415 eligible patients, 62.8% received cervical cancer screening during the 3-year study period. Screening use was lower among non-Hispanic Black patients (53.2%) and higher among Hispanic (65.4%,) and Asian/Pacific Islander (66.5%) than among non-Hispanic White patients (63.5%, all p<0.001). Most differences were explained by the distribution of patients across sites and differences in insurance. Hispanic patients remained more likely to screen after controlling for a variety of clinical and sociodemographic factors (risk ratio=1.14, CI=1.12, 1.16). Among those receiving any screening test, Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to receive Pap-only testing (versus receiving co-testing). Follow-up from abnormal results was low for all groups (72.5%) but highest among Hispanic participants (78.8%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort receiving care across 3 diverse healthcare settings, cervical cancer screening and follow-up were below 80% coverage targets. Lower screening for Black patients was attenuated by controlling for insurance and site of care, underscoring the role of systemic inequity. In addition, it is crucial to improve follow-up after abnormalities are identified, which was low for all populations.

Factors associated with timely colposcopy following an abnormal cervical cancer test result.

Successful cervical cancer prevention requires screening and appropriate management of abnormal test results. Management includes diagnostic evaluation and treatment, if indicated, based on cervical cancer risk after most abnormal test results. There is little guidance on the optimal timing of diagnostic evaluation, and few data exist on factors associated with timely management. We quantified time-to-colposcopy within 12 months of an abnormal cervical cancer screening or surveillance test result from 2010 to 2018 across three diverse healthcare systems and described factors associated with timely colposcopy. Among 21-65 year-old patients with an abnormal test result for which colposcopy was indicated (n = 28,706), we calculated the proportion who received a colposcopy within 12 months of the abnormal test and used Kaplan-Meier methods to estimate the probability of colposcopy within 12 months. Across all systems, 75.3% of patients received a colposcopy within 12 months, with site-specific estimates ranging from 70.0 to 83.0%. We fit mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression models to identify factors associated with receipt of colposcopy within 12 months. The healthcare system and cytology result severity were the most important factors associated with of timely colposcopy. We observed that sites with more centralized processes had higher proportions of colposcopy completion, and patients with high-grade results were more consistently evaluated earlier than patients with low-grade results. Patient age also affected receipt of timely colposcopy, though this association differed by healthcare system and result severity. These data suggest opportunities for system-level interventions to improve management of abnormal cervical cancer test results.

Evaluation of Harms Reporting in U.S. Cancer Screening Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening should be recommended only when the balance between benefits and harms is favorable. This review evaluated how U.S. cancer screening guidelines reported harms, within and across organ-specific processes to screen for cancer. OBJECTIVE: To describe current reporting practices and identify opportunities for improvement. DESIGN: Review of guidelines. SETTING: United States. PATIENTS: Patients eligible for screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer according to U.S. guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Information was abstracted on reporting of patient-level harms associated with screening, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. The authors classified harms reporting as not mentioned, conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative and noted whether literature was cited when harms were described. Frequency of harms reporting was summarized by organ type. RESULTS: Harms reporting was inconsistent across organ types and at each step of the cancer screening process. Guidelines did not report all harms for any specific organ type or for any category of harm across organ types. The most complete harms reporting was for prostate cancer screening guidelines and the least complete for colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Conceptualization of harms and use of quantitative evidence also differed by organ type. LIMITATIONS: This review considers only patient-level harms. The authors did not verify accuracy of harms information presented in the guidelines. CONCLUSION: The review identified opportunities for improving conceptualization, assessment, and reporting of screening process-related harms in guidelines. Future work should consider nuances associated with each organ-specific process to screen for cancer, including which harms are most salient and where evidence gaps exist, and explicitly explore how to optimally weigh available evidence in determining net screening benefit. Improved harms reporting could aid informed decision making, ultimately improving cancer screening delivery. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Evaluating and Improving Cancer Screening Process Quality in a Multilevel Context: The PROSPR II Consortium Design and Research Agenda.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is a complex process involving multiple steps and levels of influence (e.g., patient, provider, facility, health care system, community, or neighborhood). We describe the design, methods, and research agenda of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium. PROSPR II Research Centers (PRC), and the Coordinating Center aim to identify opportunities to improve screening processes and reduce disparities through investigation of factors affecting cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening in U.S. community health care settings. METHODS: We collected multilevel, longitudinal cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening process data from clinical and administrative sources on >9 million racially and ethnically diverse individuals across 10 heterogeneous health care systems with cohorts beginning January 1, 2010. To facilitate comparisons across organ types and highlight data breadth, we calculated frequencies of multilevel characteristics and volumes of screening and diagnostic tests/procedures and abnormalities. RESULTS: Variations in patient, provider, and facility characteristics reflected the PROSPR II health care systems and differing target populations. PRCs identified incident diagnoses of invasive cancers, in situ cancers, and precancers (invasive: 372 cervical, 24,131 colorectal, 11,205 lung; in situ: 911 colorectal, 32 lung; precancers: 13,838 cervical, 554,499 colorectal). CONCLUSIONS: PROSPR II's research agenda aims to advance: (i) conceptualization and measurement of the cancer screening process, its multilevel factors, and quality; (ii) knowledge of cancer disparities; and (iii) evaluation of the COVID-19 pandemic's initial impacts on cancer screening. We invite researchers to collaborate with PROSPR II investigators. IMPACT: PROSPR II is a valuable data resource for cancer screening researchers.

Examination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in military and civilian men: analysis of the 2018 behavioral risk factor surveillance system.

PURPOSE: To determine whether military men report different prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening rates than civilian men and if shared decision-making (SDM) is associated with PSA screening. METHODS: We used data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and included 101,901 men (26,363 military and 75,538 civilian men) in the analysis conducted in 2021. We conducted binomial logistic regression analyses to determine covariate-adjusted associations between military status and receiving a PSA test in the last 2 years. We then added patient reports of SDM to the model. Finally, we looked at the joint effects of military status and SDM on the receipt of a PSA test in the last 2 years. RESULTS: Military men had 1.1 times the odds of PSA testing compared to civilian men (95% CI 1.1, 1.2) after adjusting for SDM and sociodemographic and health covariates. When examining the joint effect of military status and SDM, military and civilian men had over three times the odds of receiving a PSA test in the last 2 years if they had reported SDM (OR 3.5 and OR 3.4, respectively) compared to civilian men who did not experience SDM. CONCLUSION: Military men are slightly more likely to report receiving a PSA test in the last 2 years compared to civilian men. Additionally, results show SDM plays a role in the receipt of a PSA test in both populations. These findings can serve as a foundation for tailored interventions to promote appropriate SDM for PSA screening in civilian, active duty, and veteran healthcare systems.

Variation in the receipt of human papilloma virus co-testing for cervical screening: Individual, provider, facility and healthcare system characteristics.

Since 2012, cervical cancer screening guidelines allow for choice of screening test for women age 30-65 years (i.e., Pap every 3 years or Pap with human papillomavirus co-testing every 5 years). Intended to give patients and providers options, this flexibility reflects a trend in the growing complexity of screening guidelines. Our objective was to characterize variation in cervical screening at the individual, provider, clinic/facility, and healthcare system levels. The analysis included 296,924 individuals receiving screening from 3626 providers at 136 clinics/facilities in three healthcare systems, 2010 to 2017. Main outcome was receipt of co-testing vs. Pap alone. Co-testing was more common in one healthcare system before the 2012 guidelines (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of co-testing at the other systems relative to this system 0.00 and 0.50) but was increasingly implemented over time in a second with declining uptake in the third (2017: AORs shifted to 7.32 and 0.01). Despite system-level differences, there was greater heterogeneity in receipt of co-testing associated with providers than clinics/facilities. In the three healthcare systems, providers in the highest quartile of co-testing use had an 8.35, 8.81, and 25.05-times greater odds of providing a co-test to women with the same characteristics relative to the lowest quartile. Similarly, clinics/ facilities in the highest quartile of co-testing use had a 4.20, 3.14, and 6.56-times greater odds of providing a co-test relative to the lowest quartile. Variation in screening test use is associated with health system, provider, and clinic/facility levels even after accounting for patient characteristics.

The National Cancer Institute's Role in Advancing Health-Care Delivery Research.

Improvements in cancer care delivery have the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality from cancer, however, challenges to delivery of recommended care limit progress. These challenges include growing demands for care, increasing treatment complexity, inadequate care coordination, dramatic increases in costs, persistent disparities in care, and insufficient use of evidence-based guidelines. Recognizing the important role of research in understanding and addressing these challenges, the National Cancer Institute created the Healthcare Delivery Research Program (HDRP) in 2015 as a catalyst for expanding work in this area. Health-care delivery research is a multidisciplinary effort which recognizes that care delivery occurs in a multilevel system encompassing individuals, health-care systems, and communities. HDRP staff use a range of activities to fulfill the program's mission of advancing innovative research to improve delivery of care across the cancer control continuum. In addition to developing funding opportunities, HDRP staff; support and facilitate the use of research infrastructure for conducting health-care delivery research; oversee publicly available data that can be used to evaluate patterns, costs, and patient experiences of care; contribute to development and dissemination of standardized health measurement tools for public use; and support professional development and training to build capacity within the field and grow the workforce. As HDRP enters its sixth year, we appreciate the opportunity to reflect on the program's progress in advancing the science of health-care delivery. At the same time, we recognize the need for the program to evolve and develop additional resources and opportunities to address new and emerging challenges.

Negative cancer beliefs: Socioeconomic differences from the awareness and beliefs about cancer survey.

OBJECTIVE: Socioeconomic gaps in cancer mortality may be driven partially by poorer uptake of early detection behaviors among lower socioeconomic status (SES) groups. Lower SES groups may hold both fewer positive and more negative cancer beliefs that discourage these behaviors. We examined SES differences in positive and negative cancer beliefs in US adults. METHODS: We conducted telephone interviews with a population-representative sample, aged 50+, using the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer instrument (N = 1425). Cancer beliefs were measured using three positively and three negatively framed items. We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine associations between beliefs and education, which served as a marker of individual-level SES. RESULTS: Agreement with positive statements was high (>80%) and did not vary with education, while agreement with negative statements varied. Relative to adults with a bachelor's degree, adults with a high school degree or less were more likely to agree that "treatment is worse than cancer" (45.2% vs. 68.2%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.43, 99% CI = 1.50-3.94), cancer is "a death sentence" (17.4% vs. 33.2%; aOR = 2.51, 99% CI = 1.45-4.37), and they "would not want to know if I have cancer" (15.7% vs. 31.6%; aOR = 2.88, 99% CI = 1.54-5.36). CONCLUSIONS: Positive cancer statements were generally endorsed, but negative statements were more frequently endorsed by lower SES groups. Additional work is needed to understand how negative beliefs develop and coexist alongside positive beliefs. Interventions to improve detection behaviors targeting lower SES groups may benefit from focusing on reducing negative beliefs, rather than increasing positive beliefs.

A Proposal to Improve the Early Diagnosis of Symptomatic Cancers in the United States.

Many people are diagnosed with cancer after presenting with signs and symptoms of their disease to a healthcare provider. Research from developed countries suggests that, in addition to indicating later-stage disease, symptoms can also indicate earlier-stage disease, leading to investment in research and quality improvement efforts in the early detection of symptomatic cancers. This approach, labeled early diagnosis of symptomatic cancers, focuses on identifying cancer at the earliest possible stage in patients with potential signs and symptoms of cancer, and subsequently diagnosing and treating the cancer without delay. In the United States, early detection has focused on cancer screening, with relatively less research focused on early diagnosis of symptomatic cancers. In this commentary, we propose that research focused on early diagnosis of symptomatic cancers provides an important opportunity to achieve more earlier-stage cancer diagnoses in the United States. We highlight the potential of these efforts to improve cancer outcomes, and outline a research agenda to improve early diagnosis of symptomatic cancers in the United States focused on defining and describing pathways to cancer diagnosis, identifying signs and symptoms that can be used to promote early cancer detection, and developing interventions to improve early diagnosis of symptomatic cancers.

Cancer symptom awareness in the US: Sociodemographic differences in a population-based survey of adults.

Symptom awareness may improve cancer outcomes by prompting timely help-seeking and diagnosis. Research in the UK has shown lower symptom awareness among sociodemographic groups at higher risk of poor cancer outcomes; however, no population-based surveys in the US have assessed whether cancer symptom awareness varies across sociodemographic groups. We therefore examined associations between sociodemographic factors and recognition of 11 cancer symptoms using a novel population-based survey of US adults. We conducted telephone interviews in 2014 with a population-representative sample of English-speaking adults (aged 50 and older) in the US (N = 1425) using an adapted Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer (ABC) survey. Socioeconomic status (SES) was indexed by education. Additional sociodemographic factors included gender, age, marital status, and race. We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine the association between sociodemographic factors and recognition of each symptom, adjusting for cancer experience. Participants recognized an average of 8.43 symptoms as potential signs of cancer. In multivariable analyses, less education consistently predicted lower recognition across the symptoms. As socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality widen, it is increasingly important to understand factors that may contribute to these disparities. Our results suggest that US adults of lower SES have lower cancer symptom awareness across symptoms, findings that echo results from other developed countries. With low rates of cancer screening, another approach to reducing cancer burden and disparities may be through greater symptom awareness for symptoms with lower awareness, though additional work is needed to identify mechanisms through which awareness may have its effects on cancer outcomes.

Cancer Symptom Recognition and Anticipated Delays in Seeking Care Among U.S. Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Early stage diagnosis strongly predicts cancer survival. Recognition of potential symptoms of cancer may improve survival by reducing time to seeking care. METHODS: Telephone interviews with a population-representative sample of English-speaking adults (aged ≥50 years) in the U.S. (N=1,425) were conducted in 2014 using an instrument adapted from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer survey. Anticipated time to seeking care for four cancer symptoms (persistent cough, rectal bleeding, mole changes, and breast changes) was assessed, and delay was defined as waiting >2 weeks. Recognition of symptoms as potential cancer signs was assessed dichotomously. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess associations between symptom recognition and anticipated delay, adjusting for demographics, cancer experience, self-reported health, and healthcare access. Analyses were weighted and conducted in 2017. RESULTS: Symptom recognition varied but was relatively high across all symptoms (76.9%-95.5%). Anticipated delay varied by symptom and was highest for persistent cough (41.2%) and lowest for rectal bleeding (9.1%). For rectal bleeding (AOR=2.65, 95% CI=1.31, 5.36) and mole changes (AOR=3.30, 95% CI=1.48, 7.33), anticipated delay was more likely among individuals who did not recognize the symptom as a warning sign. Adults with lower education levels (p<0.05) and African Americans (p<0.05) were less likely to delay for some symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of symptom recognition was associated with anticipated delay in seeking care for some cancer symptoms. Differences in recognition and delays by symptom could be driven partly by screening messaging or by ambiguity and functional impact of each symptom.

Cancer screening: health impact, prevalence, correlates, and interventions.

Objective: Cancer screening tests have helped to reduce cancer deaths. We provide an overview of recent research pertaining to the definition, health impact, and prevalence of several screening tests. We also discuss the multilevel correlates and determinants of screening and interventions designed to increase uptake. Design: Narrative review. Results: Epidemiologic evidence supports the effectiveness of several cancer screening tests in reducing mortality and are therefore routinely recommended. Nevertheless, uptake of routine screening falls short of recommendations in many countries, especially for colorectal cancer. Screening behaviour varies according to sociodemographic factors in addition to a range of other correlates and determinants at multiple levels. Though health behaviour theories have frequently been used to understand and identify intrapersonal level mechanisms to improve screening uptake, research suggests that additional factors from psychological and affective science, decision science, and behavioural economics should also be considered. Empirical support exists for patient education and provider recommendation interventions. Recent research has considered interventions at other levels, such as clinic, with mixed results. Conclusion: As screening recommendations evolve and become more nuanced with personalised screening, psychologists are well-placed to consider psychological factors, in conjunction with factors from other levels, that are helpful in understanding and changing screening behaviour.

Interventions to Engage Affective Forecasting in Health-Related Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis.

Background: People often use affective forecasts, or predictions about how a decision will make them feel, to guide medical and health decision making. However, these forecasts are susceptible to biases and inaccuracies that can have consequential effects on decision making and health. Purpose: A meta-analysis was performed to determine the effectiveness of intervening to address affective forecasting as a means of helping patients make better health-related choices. Methods: We included between-subjects experimental and intervention studies that targeted variables related to affective forecasting (e.g., anticipated regret, anticipated affect) as a means of changing health behaviors or decisions. We determined the overall effect of these interventions on targeted affective constructs and behavioral outcomes, and whether conceptual and methodological factors moderated these effects. Results: A total of 133 independent effect sizes were identified from 37 publications (N = 72,020). Overall, affective forecasting interventions changed anticipated regret, d = 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.15, 0.32), p < .001, behavior, d = 0.29, 95% CI (0.13, 0.45), p < .001, and behavioral intentions, d = 0.19, 95% CI (0.11, 0.28), p < .001, all measured immediately postintervention. Interventions did not change anticipated positive and negative affect, and effects on intentions and regret did not extend to follow-up time points, ps > .05. Generally, effects were not moderated by conceptual model, intervention intensity, or behavioral context. Conclusions: Affective forecasting interventions had a small consistent effect on behavioral outcomes regardless of intervention intensity and conceptual framework, suggesting such constructs are promising intervention targets across several health domains.

Lay Beliefs About the Accuracy and Value of Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Appreciating the accuracy and value of cancer screening is essential to informed decision making about screening. This study's objectives were to (1) examine people's beliefs about the accuracy and value of cancer screening, and (2) determine whether sociodemographics, cancer beliefs, and shared decision making are associated with these beliefs. METHODS: Data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey (cycle 4, August-November 2014) were used. Respondents were non-institutionalized adults (aged ≥18 years, n=3,677). Weighted generalized linear modeling was used to examine bivariate and multivariate associations between key covariates and beliefs about cancer screening (assessed by four-item scale and independently). Secondary analyses examined whether these beliefs were associated with self-reported cancer screening. Data were analyzed between 2016 and 2017. RESULTS: Only 5.6% (n=189) of respondents answered all four cancer screening items correctly. Men, racial/ethnic minorities, and those with lower education and higher cancer fatalism were less likely to have accurate beliefs about cancer screening. However, those who reported shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening were more likely to know that "when a test finds something abnormal, more tests are needed to know if it is cancer" and "when a test finds something abnormal, it is [not] very likely to be cancer" (adjusted risk ratio=1.13, p<0.01, adjusted risk ratio=1.25, p<0.01). Beliefs were not associated with likelihood of past mammography or Pap testing. CONCLUSIONS: Educators, researchers, and clinicians should consider opportunities (e.g., through shared decision making) to improve the accuracy of individuals' beliefs about cancer screening.

HPV vaccination initiation after the routine-recommended ages of 11-12 in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Since 2006, routine HPV vaccination has been recommended for females aged 11-12 in the US. However not much is known about the extent of and factors associated with HPV vaccination after the ages of 11-12. METHODS: Provider-verified data on 8,710 females aged 13-17 were analyzed from the 2013 NIS-Teen survey. 2013 data was utilized since it was the first year one can fully evaluate the age at vaccination through age 17 for females who could receive the HPV vaccine at age 11. RESULTS: Among HPV vaccinated females who were 17 in 2013, 47% (95%CI=43%-50%) received their first dose after age 12, and 24% (95%CI=21%-26%) received their first dose after age 14. The HPV vaccine was more likely to be initiated later than the meningococcal and Tdap vaccines (p<0.05), and later HPV vaccine initiation was more common among those having a more highly educated mother and those not receiving a check-up/well visit between the ages of 11 and 12 in adjusted analyses (p-values<0.05). Females initiating the HPV vaccine late were more likely to not receive three doses (RR=1.90, 95%CI=1.76-2.04). CONCLUSIONS: HPV vaccination is commonly initiated after the age of 12 in the US, which could limit the vaccine's population-level effectiveness.

Do Men Receive Information Required for Shared Decision Making About PSA Testing? Results from a National Survey.

Most professional organizations, including the American College of Physicians and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, emphasize that screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test should only occur after a detailed discussion between the health-care provider and patient about the known risks and potential benefits of the test. In fact, guidelines strongly advise health-care providers to involve patients, particularly those at elevated risk of prostate cancer, in a "shared decision making" (SDM) process about PSA testing. We analyzed data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey 2011-2012-a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey-to examine the extent to which health professionals provided men with information critical to SDM prior to PSA testing, including (1) that patients had a choice about whether or not to undergo PSA testing, (2) that not all doctors recommend PSA testing, and (3) that no one is sure if PSA testing saves lives. Over half (55 %) of men between the ages of 50 and 74 reported ever having had a PSA test. However, only 10 % of men, regardless of screening status, reported receiving all three pieces of information: 55 % reported being informed that they could choose whether or not to undergo testing, 22 % reported being informed that some doctors recommend PSA testing and others do not, and 14 % reported being informed that no one is sure if PSA testing actually saves lives. Black men and men with lower levels of education were less likely to be provided this information. There is a need to improve patient-provider communication about the uncertainties associated with the PSA test. Interventions directed at patients, providers, and practice settings should be considered.

Predictors of human papillomavirus awareness and knowledge in 2013: gaps and opportunities for targeted communication strategies.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 80 million people in the U.S. are currently infected with at least one of two strains of human papillomavirus (HPV), which is associated with 70% of cervical cancers. Greater cervical cancer mortality has been observed among women of lower SES and those living in rural, versus urban, areas. African American and Hispanic women are significantly more likely to die from cervical cancer than non-Hispanic white women. PURPOSE: To assess current population awareness of and knowledge about HPV and the HPV vaccine, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic characteristics to disparities in HPV awareness and knowledge. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were obtained from the National Cancer Institute's 2013 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS; N=3,185). Multivariable logistic regression was employed to identify gaps in awareness and knowledge by sex, education, income, race/ethnicity, geographic area, and other important sociodemographic characteristics. Analyses were conducted in 2014. RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent of Americans had heard of HPV and the HPV vaccine. Consistent with the Knowledge Gap Hypothesis, awareness and knowledge were patterned by sex, age, education, and other important sociodemographic factors. Those in rural areas were less likely than those in urban areas to know that HPV causes cervical cancer. Less than 5% of Americans were aware that HPV often clears on its own without treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although awareness and knowledge of HPV is increasing, there are opportunities to target communication with populations for whom knowledge gaps currently exist, in order to promote dialogue about the vaccine among patients and their providers.

Opportunities and challenges for the use of large-scale surveys in public health research: a comparison of the assessment of cancer screening behaviors.

Large-scale surveys that assess cancer prevention and control behaviors are a readily available, rich resource for public health researchers. Although these data are used by a subset of researchers who are familiar with them, their potential is not fully realized by the research community for reasons including lack of awareness of the data and limited understanding of their content, methodology, and utility. Until now, no comprehensive resource existed to describe and facilitate use of these data. To address this gap and maximize use of these data, we catalogued the characteristics and content of four surveys that assessed cancer screening behaviors in 2005, the most recent year with concurrent periods of data collection: the National Health Interview Survey, Health Information National Trends Survey, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and California Health Interview Survey. We documented each survey's characteristics, measures of cancer screening, and relevant correlates; examined how published studies (n = 78) have used the surveys' cancer screening data; and reviewed new cancer screening constructs measured in recent years. This information can guide researchers in deciding how to capitalize on the opportunities presented by these data resources.