Since the inception of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) in 1990, partnerships have played a significant role in providing breast and cervical cancer screening and early detection to uninsured and underinsured women. The state, tribal, and territorial NBCCEDP grantees have shared resources and responsibilities with a variety of partners (eg, community-based organizations, government agencies, tribes, health care systems, companies, professional organizations) to achieve common goals. National partners, such as the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, and the Avon Foundation for Women, have provided funding, lobbied for national and state funding, supported outreach and education activities, and provided treatment referral services for the programs. This article provides an overview of grantee partnerships to illustrate the effects, successes, and challenges of these partnerships and how they have affected the populations served by the program.

BACKGROUND: Since 2003, newer cervical cancer screening guidelines that include human papillomavirus (HPV) testing with cytology (HPV co-testing) call for extension of screening intervals in women who are cytology normal and HPV negative. Continuing medical education (CME) may help increase knowledge and appropriate adoption of new technologies and guidelines. However, there are concerns that industry support of CME may bias messages favoring newer technologies without emphasizing the updated guidelines, especially less frequent testing recommendations. Our objectives were to assess availability and accuracy of web-based CME activities describing cervical cancer screening guidelines, screening intervals, and HPV testing. METHODS: We identified 20 web-based CME activities available between 2006 and 2008 and evaluated the content for messages related to HPV and natural history, cervical cancer screening guidelines, management of HPV abnormalities, and counseling tips for patients. In addition to content, we noted funding source, credit offered, and dates available. RESULTS: Most activities (80%) discussed the updated screening guidelines with HPV co-testing for eligible women. Twelve activities (60%) referenced professional organization support of the extended screening interval with the HPV co-test, and three (15%) discussed the justification for extension of intervals for eligible women. Eight activities (40%) were funded by industry, seven of which included accurate, updated screening guidelines about extension of screening intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based CME activities generally support updated guidance for HPV co-testing and extended screening intervals but need more information on counseling patients and acceptability of extending screening intervals.