Racial and ethnic differences in personal cervical cancer screening amongst post-graduate physicians: Results from a cross-sectional survey
2008

Cervical Cancer Screening Among Female Physicians

Sample size: 204 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Ross Joseph S, Nuñez-Smith Marcella, Forsyth Beverly A, Rosenbaum Julie R

Primary Institution: Mount Sinai School of Medicine

Hypothesis

There would not be racial and ethnic differences in adherence to cervical cancer screening recommendations in this population of insured, highly-educated women who, as physicians, have health care expertise.

Conclusion

The study found racial and ethnic differences in adherence to cervical cancer screening recommendations among a group of insured, highly-educated physicians.

Supporting Evidence

  • 83% of women were adherent to screening recommendations.
  • Women who self-identified as Asian were significantly less adherent compared to white women (69% vs. 87%).
  • Women who self-identified as East Indian were less likely to accurately perceive their adherence compared to white women (64% vs. 88%).
  • 60% of Asian women reported barriers to obtaining care compared to 35% of white women.

Takeaway

The study looked at how different races of women doctors get screened for cervical cancer. It found that some groups, like Asian women, were less likely to get screened than others.

Methodology

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among female post-graduate physicians at a university hospital, examining adherence to cervical cancer screening recommendations.

Potential Biases

Self-reported data may lead to over-reporting of adherence to screening recommendations.

Limitations

The study was limited to a single institution and relied on self-reported data, which may not be representative of all physicians.

Participant Demographics

Mean age of respondents was 30 years; 53% self-identified as white, 24% as Asian, 8% as African-American, 7% as East Indian, and 5% as Hispanic/Latina.

Statistical Information

P-Value

p<0.01

Confidence Interval

0.64–0.97

Statistical Significance

p<0.01

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1471-2458-8-378

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication