Several advancements in evidence and changes in recommendations for screening pelvic examinations (SPEs) have occurred in the last decade, yet their impact on the use of SPEs is unknown. We assessed the impact of two changes: the September 2013 Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) Evidence-based Synthesis Program report finding no evidence that SPEs reduce morbidity or mortality; and the July 2014 American College of Physicians (ACP) guidelines recommending against SPEs in asymptomatic, nonpregnant women.
Methods:
We described monthly rates of SPEs among females ages 15–64 enrolled in a claims database between January 2012 and December 2019. We implemented an interrupted time series analysis to examine the impact of the QUERI evidence report and ACP guidelines on the trend in monthly SPE rates, overall and stratified by age group and geographic region.
Main Findings:
The average monthly rate of SPEs decreased from 357 per 1,000 person-years at risk in 2012 to 302 per 1,000 person-years at risk in 2019. There were no significant immediate changes in rates of SPEs after either the 2013 QUERI white paper or the 2014 ACP guidelines.
Conclusions:
Changes in guidelines had no observable impact on the rate of SPEs. Future work is needed to better understand why recent evidence and guideline developments have not impacted real-world practice to target interventions for providers to decrease SPEs efficiently.
QinJ, SaraiyaM, MartinezG, et al.Prevalence of Potentially Unnecessary Bimanual Pelvic Examinations and Papanicolaou Tests. 2020; 180(2):274–280.
2.
754 ACON. The Utility of and Indications for Routine Pelvic Examination. Obstet Gynecol, 2018; doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002895
3.
GrossmanDC, CurrySJ, OwensDK, et al.; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for ovarian cancer US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA, 2018; 319(6):588–594; doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21926
4.
LefevreML, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea: U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med, 2014; 161(12):902–910; doi: 10.7326/M14-1981
5.
MoyerVA, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Cervical Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med, 2012; 156(12):880–891, W312; doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-12-201206190-00424
6.
168 PBN. Cervical Cancer Screening and Prevention. Obstet Gynecol, 2016:128; doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001699
7.
SaslowD, SolomonD, LawsonHW, et al.; ACS-ASCCP-ASCP Cervical Cancer Guideline Committee. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. CA Cancer J Clin, 2012; 62(3):147–172; doi: 10.3322/caac.21139
8.
BloomfieldHE, OlsonA, CantorA, et al.Screening Pelvic Examinations in Asymptomatic Average Risk Adult Women. 2013.
9.
BloomfieldHE, OlsonA, GreerN, et al.Screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic, average-risk adult women: An evidence report for a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med, 2014; 161(1):46–53; doi: 10.7326/M13-2881
10.
QaseemA, HumphreyLL, HarrisR, et al.; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Screening pelvic examination in adult women: A clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med, 2014; 161(1):67–72; doi: 10.7326/M14-0701
Bibbins-DomingoK, GrossmanDC, CurrySJ, et al.; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for gynecologic conditions with pelvic examination US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA, 2017; 317(9):947–953; doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.0807
13.
MasonRE, SappenfieldOR, TurykME, et al.Prevalence of and factors associated with receiving a pelvic examination or pap testing under the age of 21 Years. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2020; 67(4):562–568; doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.03.002
14.
MartinezGM, QinJ, SaraiyaM, et al.Receipt of pelvic examinations among women aged 15-44 in the United States, 1988-2017. NCHS Data Brief, 2019(339):1–8; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5727
15.
KinlawAC, Jonsson FunkM, ConoverMM, et al.Impact of new medications and $4 generic programs on overactive bladder treatment among older adults in the united states, 2000–2015. Med Care, 2018; 56(2):162–170; doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000858
16.
PenfoldRB, ZhangF. Use of interrupted time series analysis in evaluating health care quality improvements. Acad Pediatr, 2013; 13(6 Suppl):S38–S44; doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2013.08.002
17.
ShadishWR, CookTD, CampbellDT. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin; 2002.
18.
WagnerAK, SoumeraiSB, ZhangF, et al.Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther, 2002; 27(4):299–309; doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2710.2002.00430.x
19.
KulaylatAS, SchaeferEW, MessarisE, et al.Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Databases for Clinical Research in Colon and Rectal Surgery. Clin Colon Rectal Surg, 2019; 32(1):54–60; doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1673354
20.
EllisonJ, ColeMB, HanchateAD, et al.Nonindicated pelvic examinations during contraceptive encounters: Prevalence and provider variations. Contraception, 2021; 103(4):239–245; doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2020.12.011
21.
RosenlundIM, LeivsethL, NilsenI, et al.Extent, regional variation and impact of gynecologist payment models in routine pelvic examinations: A nationwide cross-sectional study. BMC Womens Health, 2017; 17(1):114; doi: 10.1186/s12905-017-0471-2
Guirguis-BlakeJM, HendersonJT, PerdueLA, et al.Screening for gynecologic conditions with pelvic examination: A systematic review for the U.S. preventive services task force. 2017; 317(9):947–953.
26.
CabanaMD, RandCS, PoweNR, et al.Why Don’t Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines? JAMA, 1999; 282(15):1458–1465; doi: 10.1001/jama.282.15.1458
27.
MeissnerHI, TiroJA, YabroffKR, et al.Too much of a good thing? Physician practices and patient willingness for less frequent pap test screening intervals. Med Care, 2010; 48(3):249–259; doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181ca4015
28.
LeeYW, MorganJR, FiasconeS, et al.Underscreening, overscreening, and guideline-adherent cervical cancer screening in a national cohort. Gynecol Oncol, 2022; 167(2):181–188; doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.09.012
29.
FinkDJ. Change in american cancer society checkup guidelines for detection of cervical cancer. CA Cancer J Clin, 1988; 38(2):127–128; doi: 10.3322/canjclin.38.2.127
30.
WaxmanAG. Guidelines for cervical cancer screening: History and scientific rationale. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 2005; 48(1):77–97; doi: 10.1097/01.grf.0000151590.08451.26
31.
HategekaC, RutonH, KaramouzianM, et al.Use of interrupted time series methods in the evaluation of health system quality improvement interventions: A methodological systematic review. BMJ Glob Health, 2020; 5(10):e003567; doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003567
