Search

These past months of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-2019) pandemic have given us ample opportunity to reflect on the US health-care system. Despite overwhelming tragedy, it is an opportunity for us to learn and to change. As we postpone routine visits because of the pandemic, we worry about risks for patients who delay cancer screening. We use cervical cancer screening and prevention as an example of how we can use some "lessons learned" from the pandemic to prevent "collateral losses," such as an increase in cancers. COVID-2019-related health-system changes, like the more rapid evaluation of diagnostic tests and vaccines, the transition to compensated virtual care for most counseling and education visits, and broadened access to home services, offer potential benefits to the delivery of cervical cancer screening and prevention. While we detail the case for cervical cancer prevention, many of the issues discussed are generalizable to other preventative measures. It would be a tragedy if the morbidity and mortality of COVID-2019 are multiplied because of additional suffering caused by delayed or deferred cancer screening and diagnostic evaluation-but maybe with creativity and reflection, we can use this pandemic to improve care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypertext is the non-linear interface we use in multimedia on the World Wide Web. This article explores ways hypertextual communication can transform and expand the way we convey, organize, perceive, even conceive information. While hypertext's possibilities are often examined in literary, journalistic, or programming contexts, this new way of communicating -- and thinking -- has exciting implications for educators and students as well., INTRODUCTION As we enter this new millennium, a variety of Golden Calves have been touted as the answer to our educational woes. Yet amidst all the solutions {http://www.ed.gov/} bandied about, [...]

Abstract: Purpose: Our aim was to explore a signal detection method for early identification of potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in a patient cohort. Methods: ANRS CO22 HEPATHER is a French multicentre prospective observational cohort started in 2012. The cohort includes patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with reports of all adverse events (AEs) occurring in patients exposed to HCV drugs. We applied a disproportionality method, which calculated a measure of association, the Bayesian information component (IC), for each drug‐AE pair. Information components were continuously updated and a positive drug‐AE association was detected when the lower limit of an IC 95% credible interval (95% CI) exceeded 0. We illustrate how the method could result in timely detection of photosensitivity reaction with simeprevir use. Results: By August 28, 2016, 6600 patients with HCV infection had been treated or were undergoing current HCV treatment, and 3464 experienced at least one AE for a total of 12 720 reported AEs. We detected 52 positive drug‐AE associations, including 44 that were known ADRs based on the summary of product characteristics. The association between simeprevir and photosensitivity reaction was detected on June 4, 2014. At this date, 68 patients had received simeprevir and 6 photosensitivity reaction (4 during simeprevir treatment) had been reported for an estimated IC of 1.90, 95% CI, 0.20‐3.61. Conclusions: The disproportionality method can help with early detection of potential ADRs in patient cohorts. Detected associations need to be confirmed by a review of clinical data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective: To assess outcomes of women with cervical cancer undergoing upfront radical hysterectomy (RH) via a minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or a traditional laparotomy (XL) approach at 2 large US academic institutions to determine whether the mode of surgery affects patient outcomes.Design: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-1).Setting: Two academic medical institutions in the United States.Patients: Women undergoing upfront RH for cervical cancer between 2000 and 2013.Intervention: Minimally invasive techniques (laparoscopic and robotic) for RH compared with XL.Measurements and Main Results: A total of 383 women met the eligibility requirements. Of these, 101 underwent an MIS (i.e., traditional laparoscopy, laparoendoscopic single site, or robotic) approach, and 282 underwent an XL approach. Overall survival (median not reached; p = .29) was not different between the 2 groups. Recurrence was rare and equivalent in the 2 groups, affecting 5.0% of patients in the MIS group and 6.4% of those in the XL group (p = .86). Pelvic lymph nodes were dissected in 98% of patients in the MIS group and 97% of those in the XL group (p > .99) and were found to be positive in 10.9% and 8.5% of those patients, respectively (p = .55). The mean number of pelvic lymph nodes retrieved was higher in the MIS group (19.4 vs 16.0; p < .001). There was no between-group difference in the rate of postoperative chemotherapy (p = .32) or radiation therapy (p = .28). Surgical margins were positive in 5.0% of specimens in the MIS group and in 4.6% of specimens in the XL group (p = .54). Although there was no difference in the overall rate of complications (15.1% and 17.2%, respectively; p = .87), laparotomy was associated with a higher median estimated blood loss (EBL) (50 cm3 vs 500 cm3) and a higher rate of perioperative blood transfusion (3.0% vs 26.2%; p < .001). Length of perioperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the MIS group (1.9 days vs 4.9 days; p < .001).Conclusion: MIS RH does not compromise patient outcomes, including overall survival, rate of recurrence, and the frequency of pelvic lymph node dissection or positivity. Morbidity was decreased in the MIS group, including decreased EBL, fewer blood transfusions, and shorter hospital stay. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite substantial resources devoted to cancer screening nationally, the availability of clinical practice-based systems to support screening guidelines is not known.Objective: To characterize the prevalence and correlates of practice-based systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening, with a focus on the patient-centered medical home (PCMH).Design: Web and mail survey of primary care providers conducted in 2014. The survey assessed provider (gender, training) and facility (size, specialty training, physician report of National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) PCMH recognition, and practice affiliation) characteristics. A hierarchical multivariate analysis clustered by clinical practice was conducted to evaluate characteristics associated with the adoption of practice-based systems and technology to support guideline-adherent screening.Participants: Primary care physicians in family medicine, general internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology, and nurse practitioners or physician assistants from four clinical care networks affiliated with PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium research centers.Main Measures: The prevalence of routine breast cancer risk assessment, electronic health record (EHR) decision support, comparative performance reports, and panel reports of patients due for routine screening and follow-up.Key Results: There were 385 participants (57.6 % of eligible). Forty-seven percent (47.0 %) of providers reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH. Less than half reported EHR decision support for breast (48.8 %) or cervical cancer (46.2 %) screening. A minority received comparative performance reports for breast (26.2 %) or cervical (19.7 %) cancer screening, automated reports of patients overdue for breast (18.7 %) or cervical (16.4 %) cancer screening, or follow-up of abnormal breast (18.1 %) or cervical (17.6 %) cancer screening tests. In multivariate analysis, reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH was associated with greater use of comparative performance reports of guideline-adherent breast (OR 3.23, 95 % CI 1.58-6.61) or cervical (OR 2.56, 95 % CI 1.32-4.96) cancer screening and automated reports of patients overdue for breast (OR 2.19, 95 % CI 1.15-41.7) or cervical (OR. 2.56, 95 % CI 1.26-5.26) cancer screening.Conclusions: Providers lack systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening. Practice transformation toward a PCMH may support the adoption of systems to achieve guideline-adherent cancer screening in primary care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background China has one of the highest cesarean delivery rates in the world, with most cesareans done without indication. Methods Observation of how perinatal care is delivered in a range of Shanghai hospitals was done to gain insight into the 50 percent cesarean delivery rate. A mixed methods approach combined a descriptive structured survey of obstetric services with standardized interview with obstetricians and qualitative observation of obstetric services in six different Shanghai obstetric facilities. Results The volume was extremely high: physicians in public hospitals routinely saw up to 80-120 prenatal patients per day. Frequent prenatal testing substituted for time spent in patient-doctor interactions. Family members were not allowed in delivery wards where women labored alone. Obstetrics services had low levels of nursing support and anesthesia for labor. Physical space favored rapid surgical turnover over longer labor. Physicians reported practical incentives to perform cesarean sections. Discussion Cesarean delivery was an efficient way to move patients through the systems observed, given the staffing and physical limitations of the public facilities. Physicians reported that patients and families perceived cesarean delivery as safer. Physicians also reported fear of charges of malpractice, for which they might be found to be financially liable or in physical danger. Societal expectations are high, and in a 'one child' society, perception that cesarean section was safer may also have driven cesarean rates. Given the end of the One Child Policy, the preference for cesarean delivery may change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Changes to national guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening have created confusion and controversy for women and their primary care providers.Objective: To characterize women's primary health care provider attitudes towards screening and changes in practice in response to recent revisions in guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening.Design, Setting, Participants: In 2014, we distributed a confidential web and mail survey to 668 women's health care providers affiliated with the four clinical care networks participating in the three PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium breast cancer research centers (385 respondents; response rate 57.6 %).Main Measures: We assessed self-reported attitudes toward breast and cervical cancer screening, as well as practice changes in response to the most recent revisions of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations.Key Results: The majority of providers believed that mammography screening was effective for reducing cancer mortality among women ages 40-74 years, and that Papanicolaou (Pap) testing was very effective for women ages 21-64 years. While the USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations were widely perceived by the respondents as influential, 75.7 and 41.2 % of providers (for mammography and cervical cancer screening, respectively) reported screening practices in excess of those recommended by USPSTF. Provider-reported barriers to concordance with guideline recommendations included: patient concerns (74 and 36 % for breast and cervical, respectively), provider disagreement with the recommendations (50 and 14 %), health system measurement of a provider's screening practices that use conflicting measurement criteria (40 and 21 %), concern about malpractice risk (33 and 11 %), and lack of time to discuss the benefits and harms with their patients (17 and 8 %).Conclusions: Primary care providers do not consistently follow recent USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations, despite noting that these guidelines are influential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Linked article: This is a mini commentary on Gustafson et al., pp. 2132–2141. in this issue. To view this article visit https://doi.org/10.1111/1471‐0528.17200 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]