Incorporating Stakeholder Feedback in Guidelines Development for the Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests
- PMID: 32243312
- PMCID: PMC7147423
- DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000524
Incorporating Stakeholder Feedback in Guidelines Development for the Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests
Abstract
Objective: The 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines present a paradigm shift from results- to risk-based management. Patient and provider factors can affect guideline adoption. We sought feedback from stakeholders to inform guideline development.
Materials and methods: To solicit provider feedback, we surveyed attendees at the 2019 ASCCP annual meeting regarding readiness to adopt proposed changes and used a web-based public comment period to gauge agreement/disagreement with preliminary guidelines. We elicited patient feedback via a brief survey on preferences around proposed recommendations for treatment without biopsy. Surveys and public comment included both closed-ended and free-text items. Quantitative results were analyzed using descriptive statistics; qualitative results were analyzed using content analysis. Results were incorporated into guideline development in real time.
Results: Surveys indicated that 98% of providers currently evaluate their patients' past results to determine management; 88% felt formally incorporating history into management would represent an improvement in care. Most providers supported expedited treatment without biopsy: 22% currently perform expedited treatment and 60% were willing to do so. Among patients, 41% preferred expedited treatment, 32% preferred biopsy before treatment, and the remainder were undecided. Responses from the public comment period included agreement/disagreement with preliminary guidelines, reasons for disagreement, and suggestions for improvement.
Conclusions: Stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the development of the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines. Proposed recommendations with less than two-thirds agreement in the public comment period were considered for revision. Findings underscore the importance of stakeholder feedback in developing guidelines that meet the needs of patients and providers.
Conflict of interest statement
R.B.P. is a Co-Chair of the ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines process. R.N., M.S., and J.L. are Co-Chairs for the Communication Working Group for the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Consensus Management Guidelines. T.F. is the founder of Cervivor, and served on the Treatment and Communications Working Groups for the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Consensus Management Guidelines. L.N.F., S.T.V., M.M., and P.L. have declared they have no conflicts of interest. The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the US Department of Health and Human Services, the National Cancer Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Figures
References
-
- US Preventive Services Task Force, Curry SJ, Krist AH, Owens DK, et al. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 2018;320:674–86. - PubMed
-
- Wright TC, Jr., Cox JT, Massad LS, et al. , ASCCP-Sponsored Consensus Conference. 2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002;287:2120–9. - PubMed
-
- Wright TC, Jr., Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al. , 2006 ASCCP-Sponsored Consensus Conference. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical screening tests. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2007;11:201–22. - PubMed
-
- Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, et al. , 2012 ASCCP Consensus Guidelines Conference. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:829–46. - PubMed
