Association Between Clinician Confidence and Making Guideline-Recommended Decisions in the Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving. OBJECTIVE: Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results. DESIGN: A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts. MAIN MEASURES: Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines. KEY RESULTS: In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed.

Confidence in adolescent contraceptive counseling among residents and fellows training at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, Texas.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate trainees' perceptions of past training and confidence in counseling about five contraceptive methods. STUDY DESIGN: Trainees completed an online survey in 2020. Logistic regressions evaluated the relationship between participant characteristics and confidence. RESULTS: Among 227 respondents (63% response rate), pediatric trainees reported the least confidence in counseling across each contraceptive method. Past training and confidence were associated. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps in training should be addressed to improve confidence in contraceptive counseling among pediatricians in reproductively restricted states. IMPLICATIONS: This study highlights gaps in physician trainee confidence regarding adolescent contraception counseling that should be addressed to improve adolescent sexual and reproductive healthcare.

Assessing Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results and Concordance with Guideline Recommendations in Three US Healthcare Settings.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up of abnormal results is essential to cervical cancer screening, but data on adherence to follow-up are limited. We describe patterns of follow-up after screening abnormalities and identify predictors of guideline-concordant follow-up. METHODS: We identified the index screening abnormality (positive human papillomavirus test or atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or more severe cytology) among women of ages 25 to 65 years at three US healthcare systems during 2010 to 2019. We estimated the cumulative incidence of surveillance testing, colposcopy, or treatment after the index abnormality and initial colposcopy. Logistic regressions were fit to identify predictors of guideline-concordant follow-up according to contemporaneous guidelines. RESULTS: Among 43,007 patients with an index abnormality, the cumulative incidence of any follow-up was 49.6% by 4 years for those with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/human papillomavirus-negative and higher for abnormalities warranting immediate colposcopy. The 1-year cumulative incidence of any follow-up after colposcopy was 70% for patients with normal results or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia I and 90% for patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II+. Rates of concordant follow-up after screening and colposcopy were 52% and 47%, respectively. Discordant follow-up was associated with factors including age, race/ethnicity, overweight/obese body mass index, and specific types of public payor coverage or being uninsured. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to the recommended follow-up of cytologic and histopathologic abnormalities is inconsistent in clinical practice. Concordance was poor for mild abnormalities and improved, although suboptimal, for more severe abnormalities. IMPACT: There remain gaps in the cervical cancer screening process in clinical practice. Further study is needed to understand the barriers to the appropriate management of cervical abnormalities.

Characteristics of Clinicians Caring for Transgender Men and Nonbinary Individuals and Guideline Concordance of Clinicians' Cervical Cancer Screening Counseling for Cisgender Individuals Versus Transgender Men and Nonbinary Individuals with a Cervix.

Purpose: We examined characteristics of clinicians caring for transgender men and nonbinary (TMNB) individuals and guideline concordance of clinicians' cervical cancer screening recommendations. Methods: Using a survey of clinicians who performed ≥10 cervical cancer screenings in 2019, we studied characteristics of clinicians who do versus do not report caring for TMNB individuals and guideline concordance of screening recommendations for TMNB individuals with a cervix versus cisgender women. Results: In our sample (N = 492), 49.2% reported caring for TMNB individuals, and 25.4% reported performing cervical cancer screening for TMNB individuals with a cervix. Differences in guideline concordance of screening recommendations for TMNB individuals with a cervix versus cisgender women (45.8% vs. 50% concordant) were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Sizable proportions of clinicians cared for and performed cervical cancer screening for TMNB individuals. Research is needed to better understand clinicians' identified knowledge deficits to develop interventions (e.g., clinician trainings) to improve gender-affirming cervical cancer prevention.

Clinician-perceived barriers to cervical cancer screening before and during the COVID-19 pandemic at three US healthcare systems.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic posed serious challenges to cancer screening delivery, including cervical cancer. While the impact of the pandemic on deferred screening has been documented, less is known about how clinicians experienced barriers to screening delivery, and, in particular, the role of pre-pandemic barriers to changes reported during the pandemic. Methods: Survey of clinicians who performed ≥ 10 cervical cancer screening tests in 2019 from Mass General Brigham, Kaiser Permanente Washington, and Parkland Health, the healthcare systems participating in the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium (administered 10/2020-12/2020, response rate 53.7 %). Results: Prior to the pandemic, clinicians commonly noted barriers to the delivery of cervical cancer screening including lack of staff support (57.6%), interpreters (32.5%), resources to support patients with social barriers to care (61.3%), and discrimination or bias in interactions between staff and patients (31.2%). Clinicians who reported experiencing a given barrier to care before the pandemic were more likely than those who did not experience one to report worsening during the pandemic: lack of staff support (odds ratio 4.70, 95% confidence interval 2.94-7.52); lack of interpreters (8.23, 4.46-15.18); lack of resources to support patients in overcoming social barriers (7.65, 4.41-13.27); and discrimination or bias (6.73, 3.03-14.97). Conclusions: Clinicians from three health systems who deliver cervical cancer screening commonly reported barriers to care. Barriers prior to the pandemic were associated with worsening of barriers during the pandemic. Addressing barriers to cervical cancer screening may promote resilience of care delivery during the next public health emergency.