Cervical cancer screening in rural NSW: Health Insurance Commission data compared to self-report

1998 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynne Hancock ◽  
Rob Sanson-Fisher ◽  
Lynne Kentish
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Self Report

scholarly journals Health insurance and cervical cancer screening among older women in Latin American and Caribbean cities

2008 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 870-878 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. A Reyes-Ortiz ◽  
L. F Velez ◽  
M. E Camacho ◽  
K. J Ottenbacher ◽  
K. S Markides
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Older Women ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Latin American And Caribbean

TIME COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING

2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 146-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa I. Shireman ◽  
Joel Tsevat ◽  
Sue J. Goldie
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Time Of Arrival ◽  
Hourly Wage ◽  
Waiting Room ◽  
Age And Gender ◽  
Time Costs ◽  
And Gender

Objectives: Time costs borne by women when undergoing cervical cancer screening have rarely been elucidated, although such costs may pose substantial barriers to care. The purpose of this project was to quantify the opportunity costs associated with cervical cancer screening in young women attending Planned Parenthood Clinics.Methods: We conducted a self-report survey of 105 women from six clinics to measure travel, waiting, and exam times associated with cervical cancer screening. Respondents recorded their time of arrival and departure, length of time in the waiting room, age, income level, and hours per week they worked outside of the home. Time costs were valued three ways: through self-reported hourly wage, age- and gender-adjusted minimum earnings, and national age- and gender-adjusted hourly wages.Results: Respondents were on average 24 years old, worked 29 hours per week outside the home, and earned less than $20,000 per year. Mean time for one-way travel was 18.7 minutes; waiting room time was 16.9 minutes; and exam time was 50.8 minutes. Time costs were estimated to be $14.08 per visit based upon the self-reported hourly wage; $16.46 per visit based upon age- and gender-adjusted minimum earnings; and $19.63 per visit based upon age- and gender-adjusted national wage rates.Conclusions: Time costs associated with cervical cancer screening represent an important opportunity cost and should be considered in studies attempting to identify barriers to screening adherence. Our results indicate that time costs accounted for up to 25% of cervical cancer screening costs. Time costs should be identified, measured, valued, and included in cost-effectiveness analyses of cervical cancer screening.

scholarly journals Accuracy of Self-report for Cervical and Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna Anderson ◽  
Donald S. Bourne ◽  
Kim A. Peterson ◽  
Katherine M. Mackey
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Breast Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Self Report ◽  
System Level

Abstract Background: Guideline-based breast and cervical cancer screenings are fundamental components of high-quality preventive women’s health care services. Accurate measurement of screening rates is vital to ensure all women are adequately screened. Our systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide an updated synthesis of the evidence on the accuracy of self-reported measures of cervical and breast cancer screening compared to medical records. Methods: To identify studies, we searched MEDLINE®, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and other sources up to July 2019. Two reviewers sequentially selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed internal validity and strength of the evidence. Adjusted summary numbers for sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Unscreened women tended to over-report screening among 39 included studies examining the accuracy of self-report for cervical and/or breast cancer screening. The specificity of self-report was 48% (95% CI 41 to 56) for cervical cancer screening and 61% (95% CI 53 to 69) for breast cancer screening while the sensitivity of self-report was much higher at 96% (95% CI 94 to 97) for cervical cancer screening and 96% (95% CI 95 to 98). We have moderate confidence in these findings, as they come from a large number of studies directly assessing the accuracy of self-report compared to medical records and are consistent with findings from a previous meta-analysis. Conclusions: Unscreened women tend to over-report cervical and breast cancer screening, while screened women more accurately report their screening. Future research should focus on assessing the impact of over-reporting on clinical and system-level outcomes.

scholarly journals Cervical Cancer Screening Program by Visual Inspection: Acceptability and Feasibility in Health Insurance Companies

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Apollinaire G. Horo ◽  
Judith Didi-Kouko Coulibaly ◽  
Abdoul Koffi ◽  
Boris Tchounga ◽  
Konan Seni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Visual Inspection ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Cervical Screening ◽  
Screening Method ◽  
Insurance Company

Objective. To assess willingness to participate and diagnostic accuracy of visual inspection for early detection of cervical neoplasia among women in a health insurance company.Patients and Method. Cervical cancer screening was systematically proposed to 800 women after consecutive information and awareness sessions. The screening method was visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) or Lugol’s iodine (VILI).Results. Among the 800 identified women, 640 (82%) have accepted the screening, their mean age was 39 years, and 12.0% of them were involved in a polygamist couple. 28.2% of women had prior cervical screening. VIA has been detected positive in 5.9% of women versus 8.6% for VILI. The sensitivity was 72.9% and specificity was 95.2% for VIA versus 71.2% and 97.3% for VILI respectively. The histological examination highlighted a nonspecific chronic cervicitis in 4.6%, CIN1 lesions in 5.91%, and CIN2/3 in 1.2% of the cases.Conclusion. Cervical cancer screening by visual inspection showed appropriate diagnostic accuracy when used to detect early cervical lesions. It is a simple and easy to perform method that could be introduced progressively in the health insurance policy while waiting for a national screening program.

scholarly journals Cervical Cancer Screening Financing in Indonesia

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement 2) ◽  
pp. 93s-93s ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Wahidin
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
National Health Insurance ◽  
Cervical Screening ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
Primary Health ◽  
Care Facilities

Background: Indonesia has been developing social health insurance as attempt of universal health coverage with target of 100% population by 2019. The coverage was for all diseases from primary care until secondary care. Cervical cancer screening was among these which were covered by the insurance. In line with national program of cervical cancer screening, the insurance will strengthen the development of the program. As a new concept of financing - started in 2014- it need to know many circumstances of cervical cancer screening financing in Indonesia. Aim: The study was aimed to know overview of cervical cancer screening financing in Indonesia. Methods: Design of the study was descriptive study through literature review from related sources. Secondary data were collected from Directorate of Noncommunicable Disease Control and Center of Health Financing, Ministry of Health, and National Health Insurance Body (BPJS). The study was conducted in January- February 2018. Results: Cancer was ranked number 3 of highest claim for national health insurance with total IDR 1.54 trillion in 2014, became IDR 2.3 trillion in 2015. Number of cases of cancer, as claimed in hospitals, was also increasing from 702,207 cases in 2014 became 1,325,776 cases in 2015. Cervical cancer was among the highest claim. Based on Minister of Health Decree No. 52/2016 about tariff of healthcare in social health insurance, cervical cancer screening was covered by the insurance. Tariff of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) was maximum IDR 25,000 (USD 2), tariff of Papanicolaou test was maximum IDR 125,000 (USD 10), and tariff of cryotherapy of positive VIA was IDR 150,000 (USD 11.5). These tariffs can be claimed by providers of cervical screening in primary care facilities to BPJS through noncapitation scheme. This scheme was number of claim financing by BPJS to primary health centers according to type and number of health services. Mechanism of claiming was conducted by screening providers to financing officers in primary health centers using specific form to be sent to BPJS. Then, BPJS will process payment for accepted claim. Number of population became of BPJS in 2017 was 187.9 million out of 257 million target (73%). Meanwhile number of primary care facilities collaborated with BPJS was 20,708 (including 9813 primary health centers) out of 24,336 primary care facilities (84%). It means the financing of cervical screening could be used as optimal as possible to achieve national target of screening which was 37.4 million women aged 30-50 years. Conclusion: Cervical cancer screening financing was covered by national health insurance in Indonesia. Majority of primary care facility collaborated with BPJS which become strengthening factor to enhance achievement of national target of cervical screening.

scholarly journals Persistent Disparities in Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake: Knowledge and Sociodemographic Determinants of Papanicolaou and Human Papillomavirus Testing Among Women in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 135 (4) ◽  
pp. 483-491
Author(s):  
Nicole L. Johnson ◽  
Katharine J. Head ◽  
Susanna Foxworthy Scott ◽  
Gregory D. Zimet
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Pap Test ◽  
The United States ◽  
Populations At Risk ◽  
Hpv Test

Objectives Cervical cancer is the second-most common type of cancer among women aged 15-44, and racial, ethnic, and economic disparities exist in survival rates despite widely available screening tests and early treatment options. The objective of this study was to describe the association among knowledge, sociodemographic characteristics, and cervical cancer screening, with the goal of developing interventions to prevent cervical cancer in populations at risk of the disease. Methods In 2017, we conducted a nationwide survey of women in the United States aged ≥18 who had ever received a Papanicolaou (Pap) test (N = 630). We conducted t tests and one-way analysis of variance to determine sociodemographic differences (age, education, race, ethnicity, income, type of health insurance) in knowledge about cervical cancer screening (Pap test and human papillomavirus [HPV] test). We used logistic regressions to define significant determinants of cervical cancer screening behaviors in the previous 5 years. Results Of 629 respondents, 407 (64.7%) had an annual household income <$30 000, and 322 of 536 (60.1%) respondents had government-provided health insurance. Of 630 women who had ever had a Pap test, 425 (67.5%) had an HPV test. Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women were more likely than Hispanic and non-Hispanic black women (odds ratio [OR] = 2.49; 95% CI, 1.12-4.54; P = .02) and women with government-provided health insurance (OR = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.08-3.37; P = .03) were more likely than women with private health insurance to have received a Pap test in the previous 5 years. Knowledge of HPV was a significant predictor of having received an HPV test in the previous 5 years (OR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.22-1.54; P < .001). Conclusion Disparities in cervical cancer screening among sociodemographic groups of women suggest the need for targeted interventions to improve knowledge about Pap and HPV tests.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document