Madrigal DMA, Lazcano PEC, Infante CC

Language: Spanish
References: 26
Page: 637-647
PDF size: 77.20 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Cervicouterine cancer is one of the main public health problems in Mexico. Several problems related to the low effectiveness of the Program of Opportune Detection of Cervicouterine Cancer have been identified, among them: low cover of the disease detection and absence of quality control in the detection, diagnosis and treatment of it. In Mexico the quality control problem in cytology has been taken with success, but the opposite occurs with colposcopy practice. For that reason this service is overused by patients with low risk cancer and is not accessible for the high risk population.
Objective: To evaluate the association between cervicouterine cancer knowledge and satisfaction with the service regarding the use and intention of adherence to it for the follow-up and treatment, as well as analyze the resources used for this attention.
Patients and methods: A transversal study was done from May to December, 2002. It included all the patients who went to the Colposcopy Service in three hospitals. 1,606 patients were interviewed, from them 443 cases were first-time visits and 1,163 were subsequent ones.
Results: In a multivariate model we observed that the real utility knowledge of cervicovaginal cytology increases the probability that women come back to the Colposcopy Service (OR 2.0, CI 95%: 1.57, 2.54). Patients who know their diagnosis when it is dysplasia or cancer are more likely to become attached to their follow-up than those who do not know it. 91% of the users (1,463) had two or more cervicovaginal cytolgies done, and 49% (787) had eight or more. Patients who know the purpose and utility of the biopsy had a 4.4 fold probability of become subsequent than those that do not know such information (CI 95%: 1.72 to 11.35).
Conclusions: Nowadays colposcopy clinics treat 70% of the patients who are subsequent and that have normal reports of cytology. This shows us an overuse of the service, with the consequent service, monetary and opportunity costs for women. More studies should be done to reformulate the rule that controls the treatment of these patients, and incorporate follow-up guidelines according to the natural history of the disease in Mexican women.

REFERENCES

1. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, Bosch FX, Kummer JA, Shah KV, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999;189:12-19.

2. Koss LG. Cytology: accuracy of diagnosis. Cancer 1989;64:249-57.

3. Bosh FX, Manos MM, Muñoz N, Sherman M, Cansen AM, Peto J, et al. Prevalence of human papillomavirus in cervical cancer: a worldwide perspective. International Biological Study on Cervical Cancer (IBSCC) Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:796-802.

4. Logros de la Campaña Nacional contra el Cáncer (editorial). Salud Publica Mex 1976;13(2):5-6.

5. Miller AB. Cervical cancer screening programs. World Health Organization. Geneva, 1992.

6. Aristizabal N, Cuello C, Correa P. The impact of vaginal cytology on cervical cancer risks in Cali, Colombia. Int J Cancer 1984;34:5-9.

7. Lazcano E, Moss S, Cruz A, Alonso P, Casares Q, Martínez de León C, et al. Factores que determinan la participación en el tamizaje de cáncer cervical en el estado de Morelos. Salud Publica Mex 1999;41:278-85.

8. Wespi HJ. 50 years of colposcopy. Ann Ostet Ginecol Med Perinat 1976;2:109-319.

9. Benedet J, Anderson G, Matisic JP. A quality-control program for colposcopy practice. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:872-5.

10. Davey D, Armenti C. HPV primary screening for cervical cancer: more pain than protection. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;22:333-5.

11. Sanders G, Craddock C. Factors influencing default at a hospital colposcopy clinic. Qual Health Care 1992;4:236-40.

12. Arillo E, Lazcano E, Salazar M, Salmerón J, Alonso P. El conocimiento de profesionales de salud sobre la prevención de cáncer cervical. Alternativas de educación médica. Salud Publica Mex 2000;42:34-41.

13. Kavanagh A, Simpson J. Predicting nonattendance for colposcopy clinic follow-up after referral for an abnormal Pap smear. Aust NZ J Public Health 1996;20(3):266-71.

14. Shylasree T, Ashraf M, Jayawickrama N. Retrospective audit of standards and quality in colposcopy services in a district hospital. J Qual Clin Pract 2001;21(1-2):22-24.

15. Funke BL, Nicholson ME. Factors affecting patient compliance among women with abnormal Pap smears. Patient Educ Couns 1993;20:5-15.

16. Gath DH, Halam M. Emotional reactions in women attending a UK colposcopy clinic. J Epidemiol Community Health 1995;49:79-83.

17. Lazcano E, Moss S, Cruz A, Alonso P, et al. Factores que determinan la participación en el tamizaje de cáncer cervical en el estado de Morelos. Salud Publica Mex 1999;41:278-85.

18. Kinlen LJ, Spriggs AL. Women with positive cervical smears but without surgical intervention. A follow-up study. Lancet 1978;2:463-5.

19. Ellman R. Problems of follow-up for abnormal cervical smears. Discussion paper. J R Soc Med 1990;83:94-95.

20. Paskett ED, Phillips KC, Miller ME. Improving compliance among women with abnormal Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol 1995;86:353-9.

21. Lerman C, Hanjani P, Caputo C, et al. Telephone counseling improves adherence to colposcopy among lower-income minority women. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:330-3.

22. Campion MJ, Brown JR, Mc Chance DJ, et al. Psychological side-effects of the mass screening on cervical cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988;95:175-81.

23. Eardley A, Elkind AK, Spencer B, Hobbs P, Pendleton LL, Haran D. Attendance for cervical cancer screening-whose problem? Soc Sci Med 1985;20:955-62.

24. Luke K. Cervical cancer screening: meeting the needs of minority ethnic women. Br J Cancer 1996;74(Suppl XXIX):S47-S50.

25. Sherlaw-Johnson, Gavillan S, Jenkins D. Withdrawing low risk women from cervical screening programmes: mathematical modeling study. BMJ 1999;318:356-61.

26. Teale G, Moffitt D, Mann C, Luesley D. Management guidelines for women with normal colposcopy after low-grade cervical abnormalities: population study. BMJ 2000;320:1693-6.