↓ Skip to main content

Cervical Cancer Screening Guideline Adherence Before and After Guideline Changes in Pennsylvania Medicaid

Overview of attention for article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cervical Cancer Screening Guideline Adherence Before and After Guideline Changes in Pennsylvania Medicaid
Published in
Obstetrics & Gynecology, January 2017
DOI 10.1097/aog.0000000000001804
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natasha Parekh, Julie M. Donohue, Aiju Men, Jennifer Corbelli, Marian Jarlenski

Abstract

To assess changes in cervical cancer screening after the 2009 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' guideline change and to determine predictors associated with underscreening and overscreening among Medicaid-enrolled women. We performed an observational cohort study of Pennsylvania Medicaid claims from 2007 to 2013. We evaluated guideline adherence of 18- to 64-year-old continuously enrolled women before and after the 2009 guideline change. To define adherence, we categorized intervals between Pap tests as longer than (underscreening), within (appropriate screening), or shorter than (overscreening) guideline-recommended intervals (±6-month). We stratified results by age and assessed predictors of underscreening and overscreening through logistic regression. Among 29,650 women, appropriate cervical cancer screening significantly decreased after the guideline change (from 45% [95% confidence interval (CI) 44-46%] to 11% [95% CI 11-12%] among 17,360 younger than 30 year olds and from 27% [95% CI 26-28%] to 6% [95% CI 6-7%] among 12,290 women 30 years old or older). Overscreening significantly increased (from 6% [95% CI 5-6%] to 67% [95% CI 66-68%] in those younger than 30 years old and from 54% [95% CI 52-55%] to 65% [95% CI 64-67%] in those 30 years old or older), whereas underscreening significantly increased only in those 30 years old or older (from 20% [95% CI 19-21%] to 29% [95% CI 27-30%]). Pap tests after guideline change, pregnancy, Managed Care enrollment (in those younger than 30 years old), and black race (in those younger than 30 years old) were associated with underscreening. Pap tests after guideline change, more visits, more sexually transmitted infection testing, and white race (in those 30 years old or older) were associated with overscreening. We observed high rates of cervical cancer overscreening and underscreening and low rates of appropriate screening after the guideline change. Interventions should target both underscreening and overscreening to address these separate yet significant issues.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 10 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 11 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2017.
All research outputs
#393,597
of 11,839,898 outputs
Outputs from Obstetrics & Gynecology
#342
of 5,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,887
of 325,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Obstetrics & Gynecology
#16
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,839,898 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,914 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.