Adler David, Wood Nancy, Fiscella Kevin, Mustian Karen, Tourtelot Ellen, Merriman Joely, Chamberlin Sydney, Abar Beau
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA.
Department of Family Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA.
Acad Emerg Med. 2025 Jul;32(7):776-784. doi: 10.1111/acem.15101. Epub 2025 Jan 28.
Cervical cancer (CC) is preventable. CC screening decreases CC mortality. Emergency department (ED) patients are at disproportionately high risk for nonadherence with CC screening recommendations. The ED, therefore, is a target-rich environment for interventions to promote CC screening.
We conducted a randomized clinical trial to test and compare the efficacies of (1) basic referral for CC screening and (2) basic referral plus a text messaging intervention, grounded in behavioral change theory, to promote uptake of CC screening among ED patients. Participants aged 21-65, identified as in need of CC screening, were randomized to study arms and followed up at 150 days to assess interval CC screening uptake (primary outcome) and analyze methods-related moderators of intervention effects. Participants were recruited from a large, urban ED and a small, rural ED within the same health care system. Intervention arms were compared to historical controls.
A total of 4035 patients were surveyed, with 1089 identified as requiring CC screening and subsequently randomized. Upon 150-day follow-up, 20% of individuals in the basic referral arm and 23% of individuals in the basic referral plus text messaging arm had obtained screening. Screening uptake in the historical control group was found to be 10% over a 150-day period. The overall difference between prospective arms was not significant (p = 0.219). However, moderation analysis found that women ≥40 years old demonstrated greater uptake of screening after the higher intensity intervention compared to the lower (p = 0.032). The differences in screening uptake between both interventions, individually and combined, when compared to controls was significant (p ≤ 0.001).
This study demonstrates that both of the evaluated low-intensity ED-based interventions significantly increase subsequent CC screening uptake compared to historical controls. The higher intensity intervention significantly increased screening uptake compared to the lower intensity intervention among women ≥40 years old.
宫颈癌(CC)是可预防的。宫颈癌筛查可降低宫颈癌死亡率。急诊科(ED)患者不遵守宫颈癌筛查建议的风险异常高。因此,急诊科是促进宫颈癌筛查干预措施的目标丰富环境。
我们进行了一项随机临床试验,以测试和比较(1)宫颈癌筛查的基本转诊和(2)基于行为改变理论的基本转诊加短信干预,以促进急诊科患者接受宫颈癌筛查。年龄在21 - 65岁、被确定需要进行宫颈癌筛查的参与者被随机分配到各研究组,并在150天时进行随访,以评估期间宫颈癌筛查的接受情况(主要结局),并分析与方法相关的干预效果调节因素。参与者从同一医疗系统内的一家大型城市急诊科和一家小型农村急诊科招募。将干预组与历史对照组进行比较。
共对4035名患者进行了调查,其中1089名被确定需要进行宫颈癌筛查,随后被随机分组。在150天随访时,基本转诊组中有20%的个体以及基本转诊加短信组中有23%的个体进行了筛查。发现历史对照组在150天期间的筛查接受率为10%。前瞻性组之间的总体差异不显著(p = 0.219)。然而,调节分析发现,40岁及以上的女性在接受高强度干预后比低强度干预后表现出更高的筛查接受率(p = 0.032)。与对照组相比,两种干预措施单独或联合使用时在筛查接受率上的差异均显著(p≤0.001)。
本研究表明,与历史对照组相比,所评估的两种基于急诊科的低强度干预措施均显著提高了后续宫颈癌筛查的接受率。在40岁及以上的女性中,高强度干预比低强度干预显著提高了筛查接受率。