The Challenge of Follow-Up in a Low-Income Colposcopy Clinic: Characteristics Associated With Noncompliance in High-Risk Populations

Objective The study aimed to identify sociodemographic and disease-specific factors associated with follow-up in an inner-city multiethnic colposcopy clinic. Materials and Methods All charts of patients referred to colposcopy clinic for abnormal cervical cytology and/or high-risk human papillomavirus infections to the University of California, Irvine, Colposcopy Clinic in Santa Ana from November 2006 to December 2007 were reviewed. Compliance was defined as at least 1 follow-up evaluation within 3 to 14 months from initial colposcopy appointment. To determine compliance, the following factors were evaluated in a multivariate analysis: race, age, spoken language, insurance status, annual income, marital status, referral cytology, histology, and pregnancy status. Results Among the 1,046 scheduled appointments, 50% were attended. Of the patients, 458 with a minimum of 14 months of follow-up were included. The mean (SD) age of these patients was 31.0 (10.7) years. 58% were white and 55% spoke Spanish. A total of 248 patients (54%) had appropriately timed repeat testing, whereas 210 (46%) failed to return within 14 months. In univariate analysis, women who were referred from outside the clinic, single, younger than 40 years, and with self-pay or government-funded insurance were more likely to be noncompliant although this was not statistically significant. In multivariate analysis, referral from outside the clinic, self-pay, or government-funded insurance, Spanish-speaking, and single marital status were all significantly associated with noncompliance. Although cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or 3 was not associated with noncompliance, 45% of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or 3 still did not comply with recommendations. Conclusions This inner-city clinic is perhaps successful at maintaining compliance for women at highest risk for cervical cancer when the triage originates from within the clinic and when the patient is married, English-speaking, and privately insured. However, reasons for those patients at highest risk for noncompliance in this clinic may need to be better characterized.

[1]  M. Mareel,et al.  Opioids affect focal contact-mediated cell–substrate adhesion , 2010, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.

[2]  Á. D. de Miguel,et al.  Breast and cervical cancer screening in Spain and predictors of adherence , 2010, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.

[3]  H. Bernard,et al.  Recombination of human papillomavirus‐16 and host DNA in exfoliated cervical cells: A pilot study of L1 gene methylation and chromosomal integration as biomarkers of carcinogenic progression , 2010, Journal of medical virology.

[4]  A. Kessel,et al.  Cervical screening: Perceptions and barriers to uptake among Somali women in Camden. , 2009, Public health.

[5]  B. Spring,et al.  Predicting the stages of adoption of cervical cancer screening among Korean women. , 2009, Preventive medicine.

[6]  P. Disaia,et al.  Colposcopy to evaluate abnormal cervical cytology in 2008. , 2009, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[7]  A. Giuliano,et al.  Incidence trends of invasive cervical cancer in the United States by combined race and ethnicity , 2009, Cancer Causes & Control.

[8]  S. Wacholder,et al.  Grading the severity of cervical neoplasia based on combined histopathology, cytopathology, and HPV genotype distribution among 1,700 women referred to colposcopy in Oklahoma , 2009, International journal of cancer.

[9]  E. Lara-Torre,et al.  Follow-up compliance of adolescents with cervical dysplasia in an inner-city population. , 2008, Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology.

[10]  L. Clegg,et al.  Impact of socioeconomic status on cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis: selected findings from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results: National Longitudinal Mortality Study , 2008, Cancer Causes & Control.

[11]  M. Steben,et al.  Human papillomavirus infection: epidemiology and pathophysiology. , 2007, Gynecologic oncology.

[12]  F. Meier,et al.  Frequency and outcome of cervical cancer prevention failures in the United States. , 2007, American journal of clinical pathology.

[13]  Diane Solomon,et al.  2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ. , 2007, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  T. Wright,et al.  2006 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women With Abnormal Cervical Screening Tests , 2007, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[15]  Diane Solomon,et al.  2006 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women With Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Adenocarcinoma In Situ , 2007, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[16]  R. Kahn,et al.  Sociodemographic Factors Associated With High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Infection , 2007, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  Jennifer S. Smith,et al.  Factors underlying disparities in cervical cancer incidence, screening, and treatment in the United States. , 2007, Current problems in cancer.

[18]  R. Pretorius,et al.  Subsequent Risk and Presentation of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN) 3 or Cancer after a Colposcopic Diagnosis of CIN 1 or Less , 2006, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[19]  Ramon M. Cestero Risk of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 2/3) or cancer during follow-up of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection or CIN 1. , 2006, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[20]  S. Garland,et al.  A study of women's knowledge regarding human papillomavirus infection, cervical cancer and human papillomavirus vaccines , 2006, The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology.

[21]  M Arbyn,et al.  Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2006, The Lancet.

[22]  M. Manos,et al.  Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: attributable factors in the screening process. , 2005, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[23]  S. Newmann,et al.  Social inequities along the cervical cancer continuum: a structured review , 2005, Cancer Causes & Control.

[24]  K. Behbakht,et al.  Social and Cultural Barriers to Papanicolaou Test Screening in an Urban Population , 2004, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[25]  S. Lebaron,et al.  Attitudes Toward Cervical Cancer Screening Among Muslim Women: A Pilot Study , 2004, Women & health.

[26]  Ahmedin Jemal,et al.  Cancer Disparities by Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status , 2004, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[27]  A. El-Shalakany,et al.  Direct Visual Inspection of the Cervix for the Detection of Premalignant Lesions , 2004, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[28]  N. Khanna,et al.  Adherence to care plan in women with abnormal Papanicolaou smears: a review of barriers and interventions. , 2001, The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice.

[29]  Hagerstoten American society for colposcopy and cervical pathology. , 1999, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[30]  L. Massad,et al.  Knowledge of cervical cancer screening among women attending urban colposcopy clinics. , 1997, Cancer detection and prevention.

[31]  L. Brinton,et al.  The epidemiology of cervical carcinogenesis , 1995, Cancer.

[32]  R. Hiatt,et al.  Misconceptions about cancer among Latinos and Anglos. , 1992, JAMA.

[33]  A. Zauber,et al.  Determinants of late stage diagnosis of breast and cervical cancer: the impact of age, race, social class, and hospital type. , 1991, American journal of public health.

[34]  G. Matanoski,et al.  Inner-city women at risk for cervical cancer: behavioral and utilization factors related to inadequate screening. , 1990, Preventive medicine.