Sexual Health Sexual Health Society
Publishing on sexual health from the widest perspective

US physicians’ intentions regarding impact of human papillomavirus vaccine on cervical cancer screening

Charlene Wong A C , Zahava Berkowitz A , Mona Saraiya A , Louise Wideroff B and Vicki B. Benard A

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop K-55, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.

B National Cancer Institute, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 5153 MSC 9589, Bethesda, MD 20892-9589, USA.

C Corresponding author. Email:

Sexual Health 7(3) 338-345
Submitted: 29 October 2009  Accepted: 28 January 2010   Published: 19 August 2010


Background: US cervical cancer screening recommendations have not changed since the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine introduction in 2006, but epidemiological and cost-effectiveness studies indicate that recommendations will need to change for fully vaccinated women. We evaluated physician intentions regarding HPV vaccine’s impact on future screening. Methods: A nationally representative sample of 1212 primary care physicians was surveyed in 2006–2007 (response rate: 67.5%). Our study included 1114 physicians who provided Pap testing. Questions covered Pap test screening practices and intentions regarding HPV vaccine’s impact on screening. Distribution differences were assessed using χ2 statistics; multivariate analyses were performed. Results: Overall, 40.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 37.6–43.8%) of physicians agreed that the HPV vaccine will affect screening initiation, and 38.2% (35.0–41.5%) agreed that vaccination will affect screening frequency. Significant differences in responses were found by specialty; internists were more likely to agree that vaccination would impact screening than other specialties. Belief in the effectiveness of new screening technologies was associated with intention to change screening initiation (odds ratio (OR) = 1.66 (1.20–2.31)) and frequency (OR = 1.99 (1.40–2.83)). Adherence to current Pap test screening interval guidelines was associated with intention to change screening frequency (OR = 1.39 (1.01–1.91)). Conclusions: Many providers anticipate adjusting screening for vaccinated women, but a significant group believes nothing will change or are unsure. The present study provides important baseline data on intentions in the period preceding widespread vaccine diffusion and may help explain current and future trends in practice patterns.

Additional keywords: Pap cytology, prevention.


[1]  Markowitz LE Dunne EF Saraiya M Lawson HW Chesson H Unger ER 2007 Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 56 1 24

[2]  Saslow D Castle PE Cox JT Davey DD Einstein MH Ferris DG et al 2007 American Cancer Society Guideline for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine use to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors. CA Cancer J Clin 57 7 28

[3]  Committee on Adolescent Health Care ACOG Working Group on Immunization 2006 ACOG Committee Opinion No. 344: Human papillomavirus vaccination. Obstet Gynecol 108 699 705

[4]  American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) Practice Bulletin No 2009 109: Cervical Cytology Screening. Obstet Gynecol 114 1409 20

[5]  Garnett GP Kim JJ French K Goldie SJ 2006 Chapter 21: Modelling the impact of HPV vaccines on cervical cancer and screening programmes. Vaccine 24 Suppl. 3 S3/178 86

[6]  Kulasingam SL Myers ER 2003 Potential health and economic impact of adding a human papillomavirus vaccine to screening programs. JAMA 290 781 9

[7]  Franco EL Cuzick J Hildesheim A de Sanjose S 2006 Chapter 20: Issues in planning cervical cancer screening in the era of HPV vaccination. Vaccine 24 Suppl. 3 S3/171 7

[8]  Myers E Huh WK Wright JD Smith JS 2008 The current and future role of screening in the era of HPV vaccination. Gynecol Oncol 109 S31 9

[9]  Castle PE Solomon D Saslow D Schiffman M 2008 Predicting the effect of successful human papillomavirus vaccination on existing cervical cancer prevention programs in the United States. Cancer 113 3031 5

[10]  Adams M Jasani B Fiander A 2007 Human papilloma virus (HPV) prophylactic vaccination: challenges for public health and implications for screening. Vaccine 25 3007 13

[11]  Massad LS Einstein M Myers E Wheeler CM Wentzensen N Solomon D 2009 The impact of human papillomavirus vaccination on cervical cancer prevention efforts. Gynecol Oncol 114 360 4 doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.04.005

[12]  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2009 National, state and local area vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13–17 years – United States, 2008. MMWR Recomm Rep 58 997 1001

[13]  Schiffman M 2007 Integration of human papillomavirus vaccination, cytology, and human papillomavirus testing. Cancer 111 145 53

[14]  The FUTURE II Study Group 2007 Effect of prophylactic human papillomavirus L1 virus-like-particle vaccine on risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2, grade 3, and adenocarcinoma in situ: a combined analysis of four randomised clinical trials. Lancet 369 1861 8 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60852-6

[15]  Saslow D Runowicz CD Solomon D Moscicki AB Smith RA Eyre HJ et al 2003 American Cancer Society Guideline for the Early Detection of Cervical Neoplasia and Cancer. J Low Genit Tract Dis 7 67 86 doi:10.1097/00128360-200304000-00001

[16]  American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2003 Cervical Cytology Screening. ACOG Practice Bulletin 102 417 27

[17]  U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: recommendations and rationale. Available at: [verified November 2008].

[18]  Yabroff KR Saraiya M Meissner HI Haggstrom DA Wideroff L Yuan G et al 2009 Specialty differences in primary care physician reports of papanicolaou test screening practices: a national survey, 2006 to 2007. Ann Intern Med 151 602 11

[19]  Lomas J Enkin M Anderson GM Hannah WJ Vayda E Singer J 1991 Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. Delivery after previous caesarean section. JAMA 265 2202 7

[20]  Greco PJ Eisenberg JM 1993 Changing physicians’ practices. N Engl J Med 329 1271 4 doi:10.1056/NEJM199310213291714

[21]  Meissner HTJ Yabroff R Haggstrom D Coughlin S 2010 Too much of a good thing? Physician practices and patient willingness for less frequent Pap test screening intervals. Med Care 48 256 66

[22]  Cooper CP Saraiya M McLean TA Hannan J Liesmann JM Rose SW et al 2005 Report from the CDC. Pap test intervals used by physicians serving low-income women through the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. J Women’s Health 14 670 8

[23]  Saint M Gildengorin G Sawaya GF 2005 Current cervical neoplasia screening practices of obstetrician/gynecologists in the US. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192 414 21 doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.09.026

[24]  Murphy PA Schwarz EB Dyer JM 2008 Cervical cancer screening practices of certified nurse-midwives in the United States. J Midwifery Womens Health 53 11 18 doi:10.1016/j.jmwh.2007.06.014

[25]  Holland-Barkis P Forjuoh SN Couchman GR Capen C Rascoe TG Reis MD 2006 Primary care physicians’ awareness and adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines in Texas. Prev Med 42 140 5 doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2005.09.010

[26]  Schwartz LM Woloshin S Fowler FJ Jr Welch HG 2004 Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA 291 71 8 doi:10.1001/jama.291.1.71

[27]  Sirovich BE Woloshin S Schwartz LM 2005 Screening for cervical cancer: will women accept less? Am J Med 118 151 8 doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.08.021

[28]  Veloski J Tai S Evans AS Nash DB 2005 Clinical vignette-based surveys: a tool for assessing physician practice variation. Am J Med Qual 20 151 7 doi:10.1177/1062860605274520

[29]  Saraiya M Irwin KL Carlin L Chen X Jain N Benard V et al 2007 Cervical cancer screening and management practices among providers in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). Cancer 110 1024 32 doi:10.1002/cncr.22875

[30]  Saraiya M Berkowitz Z Yabroff R Benard V Wideroff L Kobrin S Screening with Human Papillomavirus and the Pap Test Vs. Pap Test Alone: What screening intervals are physicians recommending? Arch Intern Med In press.

[31]  Lomas J Anderson GM Domnick-Pierre K Vayda E Enkin MW Hannah WJ 1989 Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med 321 1306 11

Export Citation