Cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands: a tale of two countries
- PMID: 22428690
- PMCID: PMC3385017
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00652.x
Cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands: a tale of two countries
Abstract
Context: This article compares cervical cancer screening intensity and cervical cancer mortality trends in the United States and the Netherlands to illustrate the potential of cross-national comparative studies. We discuss the lessons that can be learned from the comparison as well as the challenges in each country to effective and efficient screening.
Methods: We used nationally representative data sources in the United States and the Netherlands to estimate the number of Pap smears and the cervical cancer mortality rate since 1950. The following questions are addressed: How do differences in intensity of Pap smear use between the countries translate into differences in mortality trends? Can population coverage rates (the proportion of eligible women who had a Pap smear within a specified period) explain the mortality trends better than the total intensity of Pap smear use?
Findings: Even though three to four times more Pap smears per woman were conducted in the United States than in the Netherlands over a period of three decades, the two countries' mortality trends were quite similar. The five-year coverage rates for women aged thirty to sixty-four were quite comparable at 80 to 90 percent. Because screening in the Netherlands was limited to ages thirty to sixty, screening rates for women under thirty and over sixty were much higher in the United States. These differences had consequences for age-specific mortality trends. The relatively good coverage rate in the Netherlands can be traced back to a nationwide invitation system based on municipal population registries. While both countries followed a "policy cycle" involving evidence review, surveillance of screening practices and outcomes, clinical guidelines, and reimbursement policies, the components of this cycle were more systematically linked and implemented nationwide in the Netherlands than in the United States. To a large extent, this was facilitated by a public health model of screening in the Netherlands, rather than a medical services model.
Conclusions: Cross-country studies like ours are natural experiments that can produce insights not easily obtained from other types of study. The cervical cancer screening system in the Netherlands seems to have been as effective as the U.S. system but used much less screening. Adequate coverage of the female population at risk seems to be of central importance.
© 2012 Milbank Memorial Fund.
Figures
Comment in
-
Opportunities to improve cervical cancer screening in the United States.Milbank Q. 2012 Mar;90(1):38-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00653.x. Milbank Q. 2012. PMID: 22428691 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Too much of a good thing?Milbank Q. 2012 Mar;90(1):42-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00654.x. Milbank Q. 2012. PMID: 22428692 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
The frequency of Pap smear screening in the United States.J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Mar;19(3):243-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.21107.x. J Gen Intern Med. 2004. PMID: 15009779 Free PMC article.
-
Human Papillomavirus Vaccination and Pap Smear Uptake Among Young Women in the United States: Role of Provider and Patient.J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017 Oct;26(10):1114-1122. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2017.6424. Epub 2017 Aug 25. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017. PMID: 28841084 Free PMC article.
-
[Attendance rate in the Polish Cervical Cancer Screening Program in the years 2007-2009].Ginekol Pol. 2010 Sep;81(9):655-63. Ginekol Pol. 2010. PMID: 20973201 Polish.
-
[Prevention of cervical cancer: screening, progress and perspectives].Presse Med. 2007 Jan;36(1 Pt 2):92-111. doi: 10.1016/j.lpm.2006.10.023. Epub 2006 Dec 11. Presse Med. 2007. PMID: 17296477 Review. French.
-
Cost-effective policies for cervical cancer screening. An international review.Pharmacoeconomics. 1996 Mar;9(3):211-30. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199609030-00004. Pharmacoeconomics. 1996. PMID: 10160098 Review.
Cited by
-
Looking Back, Moving Forward: Challenges and Opportunities for Global Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control.Viruses. 2024 Aug 25;16(9):1357. doi: 10.3390/v16091357. Viruses. 2024. PMID: 39339834 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Calendar-period trends in cervical precancer and cancer diagnoses since the introduction of human papillomavirus and cytology co-testing into routine cervical cancer screening at Kaiser Permanente Northern California.Gynecol Oncol. 2024 May;184:89-95. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.01.038. Epub 2024 Jan 31. Gynecol Oncol. 2024. PMID: 38301311
-
Knowledge and practice regarding cancer screening in Nepal: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2023 Nov 23;86(1):382-391. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001529. eCollection 2024 Jan. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2023. PMID: 38222683 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Regularity of cervical cancer screening in Korea: analysis using national public data for 12 years.J Gynecol Oncol. 2024 Mar;35(2):e18. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2024.35.e18. Epub 2023 Oct 16. J Gynecol Oncol. 2024. PMID: 37921602 Free PMC article.
-
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Chinese Patent Medicines for Cervical High-risk Human Papillomavirus Infection: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.J Cancer. 2023 Jul 31;14(12):2373-2385. doi: 10.7150/jca.86043. eCollection 2023. J Cancer. 2023. PMID: 37576405 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- ACOG (American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), Committee on Gynecologic Practice. ACOG Committee Opinion: Recommendations on Frequency of Pap Test Screening. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 1995;49(152):210–11. - PubMed
-
- ACOG (American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), Committee on Practice Bulletins. ACOG Practice Bulletin: Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician-Gynecologists. Cervical Cytology Screening (replaces committee opinion 152, March 1995) Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2003;102(45):417–27. - PubMed
-
- ACOG (American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) 2009a. ACOG Announces New Pap Smear and Cancer Screening Guidelines, November 20.
-
- ACOG (American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology. ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 109: Cervical Cytology Screening. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2009b;114:1409–20. - PubMed
-
- Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, Ruhl J, Howlader N, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Eisner MP, Lewis DR, Cronin K, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Stinchcomb DG, Edwards BK. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2007. 2010. Available at http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007/ (accessed February 10, 2011)
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
