A well-woman preventive care visit is a core service supported by the Human Resources and Services Administration,1 yet it is unclear which preventive services are provided by primary care physicians (PCPs) and which are provided by obstetrician/gynecologists (OB/GYNs).2,3 We examined patterns of selected age-appropriate preventive care visits across a woman’s lifespan, focusing on the wide range of preventive services provided to nonpregnant women.

INTRODUCTION: Brazil's national strategy for cervical cancer screening includes using the Papanicolaou (Pap) test every 3 years among women aged 25-64 years. Comprehensive primary care services are provided through a network of primary health units, but little is known about cervical cancer-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices among health professionals and coordinators working in these facilities. METHODS: In 2011, we conducted a cross-sectional nationally representative phone survey of 1,600 primary health care units to interview one unit coordinator and one health care professional per unit (either nurse, physician, or community health worker). Responses were obtained from 1,251 coordinators, 182 physicians, 347 nurses, and 273 community health workers. Questionnaires were administered to assess health units' characteristics and capacity for cervical cancer-related services as well as health professionals' perceived effectiveness of the Pap test, preparedness to talk to women about cervical cancer, adherence with screening guidelines, and willingness to recommend human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to females. RESULTS: Most units conducted screening (91.9%), used home visits to conduct recruitment and outreach (83.4%), and provided follow-up to women who did not return to discuss Pap test results (88.1%). Approximately 93% of health professionals stated that Pap testing was effective in decreasing death rates from cervical cancer and 65% stated that national guidelines for cervical cancer screening are very influential; 93% of nurses and physicians reported screening women annually and 75% reported beginning to screen women younger than 25 years old. Regarding HPV vaccination, almost 90% of nurses and physicians would recommend the HPV vaccine to their females patients if it were available. A larger proportion of physicians and nurses recommended the HPV vaccine to older girls (13-18 years) and women (19-26 years and even older than 26 years) than to younger girls (12 years or younger). CONCLUSION: Although Brazil's network of primary care units has significantly increased access to cervical cancer screening, effective strategies are needed to ensure that women get screened at the appropriate ages and intervals. Additionally, this study's baseline data on HPV vaccination may be useful as Brazil embarks on a national HPV vaccination program in 2014.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is a leading cause of cancer mortality in nearly all U.S. Affiliated Pacific Island Jurisdictions (USAPIJ); however, most jurisdictions are financially and geographically limited in their capacity to deliver routine screening. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 72 health care providers from five of the six USAPIJ in 2011 to assess knowledge, beliefs, practices, and perceived barriers regarding routine cervical cancer screening. We compared the responses of providers from jurisdictions that were funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) with those that were not funded. RESULTS: Most providers reported cervical cancer prevention as a priority in their clinical practices (90.3%) and use the Papanicolaou test for screening (86.1%). Many providers reported knowledge of screening guidelines (76.4%); however, more than half reported that annual screening is most effective (56.9%). Providers in non-NBCCEDP-funded jurisdictions reported greater acceptance of visual inspection with acetic acid (93.9%) and self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing (48.5%) compared with NBCCEDP-funded jurisdictions (15.4% and 30.8% respectively). Providers from non-NBCCEDP-funded jurisdictions reported inadequate technological resources for screening women (42.4%), and approximately 25% of providers in both groups believed that screening was cost-prohibitive. CONCLUSION: Although cervical cancer screening is a priority in clinical practice, beliefs about annual screening, costs associated with screening, and varying levels of support for alternative screening tests pose barriers to providers throughout the USAPIJ. Further exploration of using evidence-based, lower cost, and sustainable screening technologies is warranted in addition to emphasizing timely follow-up of all positive cases.

Cervical cancer is a leading cause of cancer death among women in Bolivia, where cytology based screening has not performed well due to health-systems constraints. In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Pan American Health Organization partnered with the Bolivian Ministry of Health and the Peruvian Cancer Institute (INEN) to build capacity in Bolivia for the use of visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid (VIA) and cryotherapy. Four 5-day courses on basic clinical skills to perform these procedures, provide related counseling, and manage side effects and infections were conducted from September 2010 to December 2012 for 61 Bolivian nurses and physicians. Of these courses, two were conducted by Bolivian trainers that were certified through a Training-of-Trainers course taught by the INEN. Classroom didactic sessions included lectures and practice with anatomic models followed by clinical practice sessions to provide trainees with practical experience in VIA and cryotherapy. Pre- and post-training evaluations were administered to ascertain knowledge gained. Evaluation of competency was conducted during simulation exercises in the classroom and during supervised performances of procedures in clinical settings. This report summarizes findings and lessons learned that will be useful for planning the supervision and monitoring phase of this project as well as for future partnerships in the Latin American and the Caribbean region.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about health providers' attitudes toward visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and cryotherapy in the prevention of cervical cancer, as most research in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) has examined attitudes of the general population. This study describes attitudes of Bolivian health professionals toward new technologies for cervical cancer prevention, focusing on VIA and cryotherapy. METHODS: Between February 2011 and March 2012, we surveyed 7 nurses and 35 physicians who participated in 5-day workshops on VIA and cryotherapy conducted in Bolivia. Multiple choice and open-ended questions were used to assess participants' acceptability of these procedures and the feasibility of their implementation in the context of perceived barriers for the early detection of cervical cancer in this country. RESULTS: Most believed that cultural factors represent the main barrier for the early detection of cervical cancer (70%), although all stated that VIA and cryotherapy would be accepted by women, citing the advantages of VIA over cytology for this belief. Most also believed their colleagues would accept VIA and cryotherapy (71%) and that VIA should replace Pap testing (61%), reiterating the advantages of VIA for these beliefs. Those who believed the contrary expressed a general resistance to change associated with an already existing cytology program and national norms prioritizing Pap testing. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants had favorable attitudes toward VIA and cryotherapy; however, a sizable minority cited challenges to their adoption by colleagues and believed VIA should not replace cytology. This report can inform the development of strategies to expand the use of alternative cervical cancer screening methods in LAC and Bolivia.

OBJECTIVE: To examine physicians' beliefs about the pelvic examination and identify physician characteristics associated with routine use of this procedure in the United States. METHODS: A total of 1250 United States family/general practitioners, internists, and obstetrician/gynecologists who participated in the 2009 DocStyles survey completed questions on beliefs regarding the utility of routine pelvic examinations for cancer screening. The survey also asked participants how often they performed this procedure as part of a well-woman exam, to screen for ovarian and other gynecologic cancers, to screen for sexually transmitted infections, and as a prerequisite for prescribing hormonal contraception. RESULTS: A total of 68.0% of obstetrician/gynecologists, 39.2% of family/general practitioners, and 18.7% of internists reported routinely performing pelvic examinations for all the purposes examined (<0.001). Adjusted analyses revealed that the factors most strongly associated with use of pelvic examinations for all purposes were being an obstetrician/gynecologist (odds ratio 8.5; 95% confidence interval 5.8-12.6) and believing that this procedure is useful to screen for gynecologic cancers (odds ratio 3.8; 95% confidence interval 2.6-5.5). CONCLUSION: Misconceptions about the utility of pelvic examinations to screen for gynecologic cancers are common. More effective strategies to change physicians' beliefs regarding the value of performing pelvic examinations in asymptomatic women are needed.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 63.4 million pelvic examinations were performed in US physicians' offices and US clinics in 2008.1 Traditionally, this procedure has been performed in conjunction with annual Papanicolaou tests but since the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists extended its recommended cervical cancer screening interval to no more than every 3 years with human papillomavirus co-testing,2 there are questions about whether an annual pelvic examination is needed. | Pelvic examinations have been performed on asymptomatic women to screen for sexually transmitted infections, to screen for ovarian and other gynecologic cancers, and to determine whether women should receive hormonal contraceptives. However, use of pelvic examinations for these purposes is not supported by scientific evidence and is not recommended by any US organization.3-6 | Little is known about physicians' pelvic examination practices. In a recent Australian study, reasons general practitioners gave for performing pelvic examinations of asymptomatic women ranged from detecting pathologic conditions to simply performing this procedure “out of habit.”7 In this study, we sought to determine the purposes for which US physicians conduct pelvic examinations.