Locally-tailored vs. centrally-administered strategies for implementation of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening in an integrated healthcare system: a qualitative research study.

IF 2.7 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Frontiers in health services Pub Date : 2025-07-15 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/frhs.2025.1595934
Erin E Hahn, Corrine Munoz-Plaza, Chunyi Hsu, Nancy T Cannizzaro, Quyen Ngo-Metzger, Michael K Gould, Brian S Mittman, Melissa Hodeib, Devansu Tewari, Chun R Chao
{"title":"Locally-tailored vs. centrally-administered strategies for implementation of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening in an integrated healthcare system: a qualitative research study.","authors":"Erin E Hahn, Corrine Munoz-Plaza, Chunyi Hsu, Nancy T Cannizzaro, Quyen Ngo-Metzger, Michael K Gould, Brian S Mittman, Melissa Hodeib, Devansu Tewari, Chun R Chao","doi":"10.3389/frhs.2025.1595934","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Primary human papillomavirus <i>(</i>HPV<i>)</i> testing is recommended for cervical cancer screening for women aged 30-65 years without a history of abnormal results. However, there is little clear guidance regarding effective strategies for implementing primary HPV screening. As part of an ongoing randomized trial comparing implementation strategies for primary HPV testing (a centrally administered + usual care strategy vs. centrally administered + locally tailored strategy), we evaluated clinician experiences and perceptions of large-scale implementation of primary HPV screening in an integrated healthcare system, Kaiser Permanente Southern California.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We conducted qualitative interviews with internal medicine, family medicine and obstetrics/gynecology clinicians to gain insight into fidelity to the interventions and implementation strategies, barriers and facilitators to implementation, and recommendations. Participants from both arms of the trial were recruited. Interview guides were developed with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We recruited physicians, licensed vocational nurses, and medical assistants after primary HPV screening had been implemented. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Using a team coding approach, we developed an initial coding structure refined during iterative analysis; data were subsequently organized thematically into domains, key themes, and sub-themes using thematic analysis, followed by framework analysis informed by CFIR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-two interviews were conducted. Participants in both arms of the trial noted high awareness, preparedness, buy-in, and fidelity to the new screening process. Initial barriers concerned specimen collection, proper ordering, and lab delays. An unanticipated barrier was the length of time needed to return lab results for reflexive cytology tests after a positive HPV result which reportedly increased patient anxiety. Participants in both arms reported fidelity to the centralized strategy (e.g., attending webinars, leadership announcements). In the local-tailored arm, few participants recalled the local-tailored resources.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The centralized strategy was perceived as highly acceptable and feasible, and fidelity to the associated interventions appear to be facilitators of practice change. Recommendations for improving implementation included patient education, outreach and ongoing clinician training. Findings can be applied to other health systems and settings considering primary HPV screening implementation, particularly those within the U.S. or with a similar health care model.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier #NCT04371887.</p>","PeriodicalId":73088,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in health services","volume":"5 ","pages":"1595934"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12303904/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in health services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2025.1595934","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is recommended for cervical cancer screening for women aged 30-65 years without a history of abnormal results. However, there is little clear guidance regarding effective strategies for implementing primary HPV screening. As part of an ongoing randomized trial comparing implementation strategies for primary HPV testing (a centrally administered + usual care strategy vs. centrally administered + locally tailored strategy), we evaluated clinician experiences and perceptions of large-scale implementation of primary HPV screening in an integrated healthcare system, Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

Materials and methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with internal medicine, family medicine and obstetrics/gynecology clinicians to gain insight into fidelity to the interventions and implementation strategies, barriers and facilitators to implementation, and recommendations. Participants from both arms of the trial were recruited. Interview guides were developed with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We recruited physicians, licensed vocational nurses, and medical assistants after primary HPV screening had been implemented. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Using a team coding approach, we developed an initial coding structure refined during iterative analysis; data were subsequently organized thematically into domains, key themes, and sub-themes using thematic analysis, followed by framework analysis informed by CFIR.

Results: Thirty-two interviews were conducted. Participants in both arms of the trial noted high awareness, preparedness, buy-in, and fidelity to the new screening process. Initial barriers concerned specimen collection, proper ordering, and lab delays. An unanticipated barrier was the length of time needed to return lab results for reflexive cytology tests after a positive HPV result which reportedly increased patient anxiety. Participants in both arms reported fidelity to the centralized strategy (e.g., attending webinars, leadership announcements). In the local-tailored arm, few participants recalled the local-tailored resources.

Discussion: The centralized strategy was perceived as highly acceptable and feasible, and fidelity to the associated interventions appear to be facilitators of practice change. Recommendations for improving implementation included patient education, outreach and ongoing clinician training. Findings can be applied to other health systems and settings considering primary HPV screening implementation, particularly those within the U.S. or with a similar health care model.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier #NCT04371887.

在综合医疗保健系统中实施原发性人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)筛查的地方定制与中央管理策略:一项定性研究。
简介:原发性人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)检测推荐用于30-65岁无异常结果史的女性宫颈癌筛查。然而,关于实施原发性HPV筛查的有效策略的明确指导很少。作为一项正在进行的比较原发性HPV检测实施策略的随机试验的一部分(中央管理+常规护理策略与中央管理+局部定制策略),我们评估了临床医生在综合医疗系统(Kaiser Permanente Southern California)中大规模实施原发性HPV筛查的经验和看法。材料和方法:我们对内科、家庭医学和妇产科临床医生进行了定性访谈,以了解干预措施和实施策略的保真度、实施的障碍和促进因素以及建议。试验的两组参与者均被招募。访谈指南是根据执行研究综合框架(CFIR)制定的。我们招募了医生、有执照的职业护士和实施了HPV初级筛查后的医疗助理。采访被记录下来并记录下来。使用团队编码方法,我们在迭代分析期间开发了一个初始编码结构;随后使用主题分析将数据按主题组织为领域、关键主题和子主题,然后使用CFIR通知的框架分析。结果:共进行了32次访谈。试验双方的参与者都注意到对新的筛选过程的高度认识、准备、支持和忠诚。最初的障碍涉及标本采集、正确排序和实验室延误。一个意想不到的障碍是,在HPV阳性结果后,需要很长时间才能返回反射细胞学检查的实验室结果,据报道这增加了患者的焦虑。两组参与者都报告了对集中战略的忠诚(例如,参加网络研讨会,领导公告)。在本地定制组中,很少有参与者回忆起本地定制的资源。讨论:集中策略被认为是高度可接受和可行的,对相关干预措施的忠诚似乎是实践变化的促进因素。改善实施的建议包括患者教育、外联和持续的临床医生培训。研究结果可应用于考虑实施初级HPV筛查的其他卫生系统和环境,特别是美国或具有类似卫生保健模式的卫生系统和环境。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov,标识符#NCT04371887。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信