Communicating mild and borderline abnormal cervical smear results: How and what are women told?

Cytopathology

Volumn 13, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 355-363

  Philips, Z ^a   Johnson, S ^a   Avis, M ^a   Whynes, David K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Abnormal smear; Cervical cancer; Communication; General practice; Information; Papanicolaou smear

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTICE; GEOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL AUDIT; NURSE; PATIENT INFORMATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESPONSIBILITY; TELEPHONE; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

FEMALE; HUMANS; NURSE-PATIENT RELATIONS; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0036907004     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.2002.00447.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Sasieni P, Adams J. E;ect of screening on cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales: Analysis of trends with an age period cohort model. Br Med J 1999; 318: 1244-5.
2. Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, Allen E. Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of the cervix in England: Evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. Br Med J 1999; 318: 904-8.
3. Raffle A, Alden B, Mackenzie E. Detection rates for abnormal cervical smears: What are we screening for? Lancet 1995; 345: 1469-73.
4. Fylan F. Screening for cervical cancer: A review of women's attitudes, knowledge and behaviour. Br J General Prac 1998; 48: 1509-14.
5. Austoker J, Davey C. Cervical Smear Results Explained: A Guide for Primary Care. London: Cancer Research Campaign; 1997.
6. Walboomers JMM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999, 2001/ 22; 189: 12-9.
7. Austoker J, Davey C, Jansen C. Improving the Quality of the Written Information Sent to Women About Cervical Screening. Part I. Evidence Based Criteria for the Content of Letters and Leaflets. SheLeld: NHSCSP; 1997.
8. Anonymous. Cervical Screening Programme: England 2000-01, Bulletin. London: Government Statistical Service; 2001.
9. Johnson N, Sutton J, Thornton JG, Lilford RJ, Johnson VA, Peel KR. Decision analysis for best management of mildly dyskaryotic smear. Lancet 1993; 342: 91-6.
10. Flannelly G, Anderson D, Kitchener HC, Mann EM, Campbell M, Fisher P, Walker F, Templeton AA. Management of women with mild or moderate cervical dyskaryosis. Br Med J 1994; 308: 1399-403.
11. Jones MH, Singer A, Jenkins D. The mildly abnormal cervical smear: Patient anxiety and choice of management. J Royal Soc Med 1996; 89: 257-60.
12. Meana M, Stewart DE, Lickrish GM, Murphy J, Rosen B. Patient preference for the mangement of mildly abnormal Papanicolaou smears. Journal Women's Health Gender Based Med 1999; 8: 941-7.
13. Kavanagh AM, Broom DH. Women's understanding of abnormal cervical smear results: A qualitative interview study. Br Med J 1997; 314: 1388-91.
14. Somerset M, Peters TJ. Intervening to reduce anxiety for women with mild dyskaryosis: Do we know what works and why? J Advanced Nursing 1998; 28: 563-70.
15. Baxter K, Peters TJ, Somerset M, Wilkinson C. Anxiety amongst women with mild dyskaryosis: Costs of an educational intervention. Family Prac 1999; 16: 353-9.
16. Williams S, McIntosh J. Problems of implementing evidence based health promotion material in general practice. Health Education J 1996; 55: 24-30.
17. Kahn JA, Emans SJ, Goodman E. Measurement of young women's attitudes about communication with providers regarding Papanicolaou smears. J Adolescent Health 2001; 29: 344-51.
18. Marteau T. Psychological costs of screening. Br Med J 1989; 299: 527.
19. McCormick J. Cervical smears: A questionable practice? Lancet 1989; ii: 207-9.
20. Wilkinson C, Jones J, McBride J. Anxiety caused by abnormal results of a cervical smear test: A randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 1990; 300: 440.
21. Mar CD, Wright R. Notifying women of the results of their cervical smear test by mail: Does it result in a decreased loss to follow-up of abnormal smears? Aust J Public Health 1995; 19: 211-3.
22. Coulter A. Evidence based patient information. Br Med J 1998; 317: 225-6.
23. Howells RE, Dunn PD, Isasi T, Chenoy R, Calvert E, Jones PW, Sjhroff JF, Redman CW. Is the provision of information leaflets before colposcopy beneficial? A prospective randomised study. Br J Obstetrics Gynaecol 1999; 106: 528-34.
24. Lane V, Lawler J. Pap smear brochures, misogyny and language: A discourse analysis and feminist critique. Nursing Inquiry 1997; 4: 262-7.
25. Schofield MJ, Sanson-Fisher R, Halpin S, Redman S. Notification and follow-up of Pap test results: Current practice and women's preferences. Preventive Med 1994; 23: 276-83.
26. Peres M, Wellman M. Notification of Papanicolaou smear results: A survey of women's experiences and preferred means of notification. Aust NZ J Obstetrics Gynaecol 2001; 41: 82-5.
27. Austoker J. Gaining informed consent for screening. Br Med J 1999; 319: 722-3.
28. Slater DN. Are women sufficiently well informed to provide valid consent for the cervical smear test? Cytopathology 2000; 11: 166-70.
29. Foxwell M, Alder E. More information equates with less anxiety: Reducing anxiety in cervical screening. Professional Nurse 1993; 9: 32-6.
30. Griemel ER, Gappmayer-Locker E, Girardi FL, Huber HP. Increasing women's knowledge and satisfaction with cervical cancer screening. J Psychsomatic Obstetrics Gynaecol 1997; 18: 273-9.
31. Somerset M, Baxter K, Wilkinson C, Peters TJ. Mildly dyskaryotic smears: Does it matter what women know? Family Prac 1998; 15: 537-42.
32. Peters T, Somerset M, Baxter K, Wilkinson C. Anxiety among women with mild dyskaryosis: A randomised trial of an educational intervention. Br J General Prac 1999; 49: 348-52.
33. Curry SJ, Taplin SH, Anderman C, Barlow WE, McBride CA. A randomised trial of the impact of risk assessment and feedback on participation in mammographic screening. Preventive Med 1993; 22: 350-60.
34. Domenighetti G, Grilli R, Maggi JR. Does provision of an evidence-based information change public willingness to accept screening tests? Health Expectations 2000; 3: 145-50.
35. Braun V, Gavey N. 'With the best of reasons': Cervical cancer prevention policy and the suppression of sexual risk factor information. Social Sci Med 1999; 48: 1463-74.
36. Bell S, Porter M, Kitchener H, Fraser C, Fisher P, Mann, E. Psychological response to cervical screening. Preventive Med 1995; 24: 610-6.