Use of electronic health record data to evaluate overuse of cervical cancer screening

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Volumn 19, Issue E1, 2012, Pages

  Mathias, Jason S ^a   Gossett, Dana ^a   Baker, David W ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; COLPOSCOPY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICE; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

ADULT; AGED; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FEMALE; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 84863557462     PISSN: 10675027     EISSN: 1527974X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000536     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Kaiser Family Foundation. Percent Annual Increase in National Health Expenditures (NHE) per Capita vs. Increase in Consumer Price Index (CPI), 1980-2009. 2011. http://facts.kff.org/chart.aspx?ch&212 (accessed 20 Jun 2011).
2. American College of Physicians. ACP's High-Value, Cost-Conscious Care Initiative. 2011. http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/events/state_of_healthcare/cost_initiative11.pdf (accessed 10 Jun 2011).
3. National Quality Forum. Overuse. 2011. http://www.qualityforum.org/Topics/ Overuse.aspx (accessed 20 Jun 2011).
4. American Medical Association. PCPI and PCPI Approved Quality Measures. 2011. http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/listserv/x-check/qmeasure.cgi?submit&PCPI (accessed 24 Jun 2011).
5. Chung J, Kaleba E, Wozniak G. Empirical Applications for Assessing the Efficiency and Value of Healthcare Using the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement Physician Performance Measures. American Medical Association, 2008. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/370/empirical_applications.pdf (accessed 24 Jun 2011).
6. Owens DK, Qaseem A, Chou R, et al. High-value, cost-conscious health care: concepts for clinicians to evaluate the benefits, harms, and costs of medical interventions. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:174-80.
7. Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, et al. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 2005;293:1223-38.
8. Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, et al. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:742-52.
9. Walter LC, Bertenthal D, Lindquist K, et al. PSA screening among elderly men with limited life expectancies. JAMA 2006;296:2336-42.
10. Walter LC, Lindquist K, Nugent S, et al. Impact of age and comorbidity on colorectal cancer screening among older veterans. Ann Intern Med 2009;150:465-73.
11. Tierney WM, McDonald CJ, Hui SL, et al. Computer predictions of abnormal test results. Effects on outpatient testing. JAMA 1988;259:1194-8.
12. Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Rittenberg E, et al. A randomized trial of a computerbased intervention to reduce utilization of redundant laboratory tests. Am J Med 1999;106:144-50.
13. ACOG Committee on Practice BulletinsdGynecology. ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 109: Cervical cytology screening. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:1409-20.
14. Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D, et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2002;52:342-62.
15. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Cervical Cancer: Recommendations and Rationale. 2003. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/3rduspstf/cervcan/cervcanrr.pdf (accessed 11 May 2011).
16. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins. ACOG Practice Bulletin: clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Number 45, August 2003. Cervical cytology screening (replaces committee opinion 152, March 1995). Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:417-27.
17. Sawaya GF, McConnell KJ, Kulasingam SL, et al. Risk of cervical cancer associated with extending the interval between cervical-cancer screenings. N Engl J Med 2003;349:1501-9.
18. Kulasingam SL, Myers ER, Lawson HW, et al. Cost-effectiveness of extending cervical cancer screening intervals among women with prior normal pap tests. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:321-8.
19. Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:346-55.
20. Wardle J, Pope R. The psychological costs of screening for cancer. J Psychosom Res 1992;36:609-24.
21. Bell S, Porter M, Kitchener H, et al. Psychological response to cervical screening. Prev Med 1995;24:610-16.
22. Saraiya M, McCaig LF, Ekwueme DU. Ambulatory care visits for Pap tests, abnormal Pap test results, and cervical cancer procedures in the United States. Am J Manag Care 2010;16:e137-44.
23. Eltoum IA, Roberson J. Impact of HPV testing, HPV vaccine development, and changing screening frequency on national Pap test volume: projections from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Cancer 2007;111:34-40.
24. Meissner HI, Tiro JA, Yabroff KR, et al. Too much of a good thing? Physician practices and patient willingness for less frequent pap test screening intervals. Med Care 2010;48:249-59.
25. Yabroff KR, Saraiya M, Meissner HI, et al. Specialty differences in primary care physician reports of papanicolaou test screening practices: a national survey, 2006 to 2007. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:602-11.
26. Saraiya M, Berkowitz Z, Yabroff KR, et al. Cervical cancer screening with both human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou testing vs Papanicolaou testing alone: what screening intervals are physicians recommending? Arch Intern Med 2010;170:977-85.
27. Holland-Barkis P, Forjuoh SN, Couchman GR, et al. Primary care physicians' awareness and adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines in Texas. Prev Med 2006;42:140-5.
28. Lee JW, Berkowitz Z, Saraiya M. Low-risk human papillomavirus testing and other nonrecommended human papillomavirus testing practices among u.s. Health care providers. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:4-13.
29. Health Care Efficiency Measures: Identification, Categorization, and Evaluation. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, 2008. http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/efficiency/ (accessed 11 May 2011).