Management of low-grade cervical abnormalities detected at screening: Which method do women prefer?

Cytopathology

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 355-362

  Whynes, D K ^a   Woolley, C ^a   Philips, Z ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cervical cytology; Colposcopy; Contingent valuation; Low grade; Preferences; Screening; Self reported health; Visual analogue scale

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER GRADING; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLPOSCOPY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SELF REPORT; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADULT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COLPOSCOPY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; QUESTIONNAIRES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 56549091322     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: 13652303     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2008.00565.x     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Lindeque BG. Management of cervical premalignant lesions. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2005 19 : 545 61.
2. Hammond R. Management of women with smears showing mild dyskaryosis. Br Med J 1994 308 : 1383 4.
3. Soutter WP, Fletcher A. Invasive cancer of the cervix in women with mild dyskaryosis followed up cytologically. Br Med J 1994 308 : 1421 3.
4. Flannelly G, Anderson D, Kitchener HC et al. Management of women with mild and moderate cervical dyskaryosis. Br Med J 1994 308 : 1399 403.
5. Flannelly G, Campbell MK, Meldrum P et al. Immediate colposcopy or cytological surveillance for women with mild dyskaryosis: a cost effectiveness analysis. J Public Health Med 1997 19 : 419 23.
6. Jones MH. The management dilemma of the mildly abnormal smear: fact or fiction? Ann Acad Med Singapore 1998 27 : 666 70.
7. Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P et al. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2006 367 : 489 98.
8. Bell S, Porter M, Kitchener H et al. Psychological response to cervical screening. Prev Med 1995 24 : 610 6.
9. Jones MH, Singer A, Jenkins D. The mildly abnormal smear: patient anxiety and choice of management. J R Soc Med 1996 89 : 257 60.
10. Rogstad KE. The psychological impact of abnormal cytology and colposcopy. BJOG 2002 109 : 364 8.
11. Ferris DG, Kriegel D, Cote L, Litaker M, Woodward L. Women's triage and management preferences for cervical cytologic reports demonstrating atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Arch Fam Med 1997 6 : 348 53.
12. Melnikow J, Kupperman M, Birch S, Chan BKS. Management of the low-grade abnormal Pap smear: what are women's preferences? J Fam Pract 2002 51 : 849 55.
13. Meana M, Stewart DE, Lickrish GM, Murphy J, Rosen B. Patient preference for the management of mildly abnormal Papanicolaou smears. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 1999 8 : 941 7.
14. Kitchener HC, Burns S, Nelson L et al. A randomised controlled trial of cytological surveillance versus patient choice between surveillance and colposcopy in managing mildly abnormal cervical smears. BJOG 2004 111 : 63 70.
15. Cotton SC, Sharp L, Little J et al. Trial of management of borderline and other low-grade abnormal smears (TOMBOLA): trial design. Contemp Clin Trials 2006 27 : 449 71.
16. Philips Z, Gray N, Avis M, Whynes DK. Psychosocial and economic aspects of a trial of management of mild and borderline cervical abnormalities (TOMBOLA). Eur J Oncol Nurs 2002 6 : 23 9.
17. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 1999 47 : 97 123.
18. Rabin R, De Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQoL Group. Ann Med 2001 33 : 337 43.
19. Gray NM, Sharp L, Cotton SC et al. Psychological effects of a low-grade abnormal cervical smear test result: anxiety and associated factors. Br J Cancer 2006 94 : 1253 62.
20. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001 5 : 1 177.
21. Crow R, Kimber A, Gage H et al. The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health Technol Assess 2002 6 : 1 235.
22. Cullen J, Schwartz MD, Lawrence WF, Selby JV, Mandelblatt JS. Short-term impact of cancer prevention and screening activities on quality of life. J Clin Oncol 2004 22 : 943 52.
23. Brewin CR, Bradley C. Patient preferences and randomised controlled trials. Br Med J 1989 299 : 313 5.
24. King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F et al. Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants' and professionals' preferences in randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 2005 9 : 1 169.
25. Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS. The therapeutic misconception: problems and solutions. Med Care 2002 40 : V55 63.
26. Nurgat ZA, Craig W, Campbell NC et al. Patient motivations surrounding participation in phase I and phase II clinical trials of cancer chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 2005 92 : 1001 5.
27. Sharp L, Cotton SC, Alexander L et al. Reasons for participation and non-participation in a randomised controlled trial: postal questionnaire surveys of women eligible for TOMBOLA (Trial Of Management of Borderline and Other Low-grade Abnormal smears). Clin Trials 2006 3 : 431 42.