PAP Smear-screening in Primary Care Women Physicians and Its Influence on Patients.
- Author:
Soon Ok KIM
1
;
Dae Gyeun KIM
;
Jun Su KIM
;
Jung Kwon LEE
;
Jun Hyun YOO
Author Information
1. Department of Family Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. drjohn.yoo@samsung.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
PAP-smear;
women physicians;
PAP-screening;
recommending proportion;
associated factors
- MeSH:
Surveys and Questionnaires;
Female;
Humans;
Mass Screening;
Physicians, Women*;
Primary Health Care*;
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
- From:Journal of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine
2007;28(8):589-598
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: PAP smear has been highly appraised for screening cervical cancer. Generally regarded is that women physicians regularly screen for PAP would promote patients' early detection and treatment rate by their strong recommendation. Hereby we investigated PAP-screening in primary care women physicians, recommending proportion and associated factors. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to 981 members of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine, Korean Association of Family Practitioners, Korean Medical Women's Association, and Songpa-gu and Kangdong-gu family practitioners. a total of 193 respondents was analyzed. RESULTS: Among the total 55.4% of the respondents screened for PAP smear regularly, either annually (23.9%), or from their treating gynecologists (61.6%) or through routine check-up (81.1%). Common reasons for not screening were lack of time (40.7%) and forgetfulness (38.4%). Recommending proportion for PAP to patients was 49.2%. Reasons for not recommending were lack of equipment, forgetfulness (18.8% each). Confidence of PAP as a screening test was very high (71.5%); significantly related to PAP-screening and to recommending proportion (P=0.033, P=0.005, respectively). Many of the respondents thought physician's own PAP-screening affected its recommendation (45.3%), whereas significant relation to their actual PAP-screening was not found (P=0.845). PAP-screening in physicians showed no significant relationship with recommending proportion (P=0.053). Internal disease history had meaningful relation only with recommending proportion (P=0.001). CONCLUSION: Though physicians show strong confidence in PAP and undergo more than the general public, most do not screen for it regularly and the recommending proportion was low. To improve physician's PAP-screening and recommending proportion, re-education of physicians and provision of proper clinical equipment are required.
