Paige W. Lake

Stakeholders’ perspectives on system-level barriers to and facilitators of HPV vaccination among Hispanic migrant farmworkers

Latinx populations suffer from a disproportionate burden of HPV-related cancers, yet vaccination completion rates nationally among this population remain low, with 46% of females and 35% of males completing the vaccine series. Given the heterogeneity of Latinx populations, sub-populations such as Latinx individuals who live in migrant farmworker communities experience additional system-level barriers to healthcare utilization. Thus, we examined stakeholder perceptions of barriers and facilitators to Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among Latinx migrant farmworkers. Such information is critical to informing intervention development targeting vaccination uptake and completion, ultimately decreasing HPV-related cancer disparities. Guided by the PRECEDE-PROCEED model and the Social Ecological Model (SEM), interviews were conducted with diverse stakeholders ( Micro-level facilitators identified included positive attitudes and vaccine acceptance among parents. Meso-level facilitators included availability of free or low-cost health care clinics, and macro-level facilitators included federal programs (e.g. Medicaid, Vaccine for Children). Micro-level barriers included lack of education and low health literacy. Meso-level barriers included poor patient-provider communication, lack of access (e.g. clinics not stocking/administering the vaccine; limited clinic hours; lack of reminder systems; insufficient organizational structure), public perceptions/attitudes towards HPV vaccination, and lack of healthcare service continuity due to migratory patterns. Macro-level barriers included public perceptions and attitudes towards HPV vaccination, transportation, vaccine availability and coverage for non-citizens, and lack of school entry policy. Findings suggest that multi-level interventions should be developed to leverage existing facilitators while addressing system-level barriers, ultimately creating a supportive environment for HPV vaccine initiation and completion among this marginalized population comprised of individuals living in migrant farmworker communities.

Examining the perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cervical cancer screening practices among clinicians practicing in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A mixed methods study

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to reductions in cervical cancer screening and colposcopy. Therefore, in this mixed methods study we explored perceived pandemic-related practice changes to cervical cancer screenings in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Methods: Between October 2021 and June 2022, we conducted a national web survey of clinicians (physicians and advanced practice providers) who performed cervical cancer screening in FQHCs in the United States during the post-acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with a sub-set of qualitative interviews via video conference, to examine perceived changes in cervical cancer screening practices during the pandemic. Results: A total of 148 clinicians completed surveys; a subset (n=13) completed qualitative interviews. Most (86%) reported reduced cervical cancer screening early in the pandemic, and 28% reported continued reduction in services at the time of survey completion (October 2021- July 2022). Nearly half (45%) reported staff shortages impacting their ability to screen or track patients. Compared to clinicians in Obstetrics/Gynecology/Women’s health, those in family medicine and other specialties more often reported reduced screening compared to pre-pandemic. Most (92%) felt that screening using HPV self-sampling would be very or somewhat helpful to address screening backlogs. Qualitative interviews highlighted the impacts of staff shortages and strategies for improvement. Conclusions: Findings highlight that in late 2021 and early 2022, many clinicians in FQHCs reported reduced cervical cancer screening and of pandemic-related staffing shortages impacting screening and follow-up. If not addressed, reduced screenings among underserved populations could worsen cervical cancer disparities in the future. Funding: This study was funded by the American Cancer Society, who had no role in the study’s design, conduct, or reporting.

Examining the association of clinician characteristics with perceived changes in cervical cancer screening and colposcopy practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods assessment

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to reductions in cervical cancer screening and colposcopy. Therefore, in this mixed method study we explored perceived pandemic-related practice changes to cervical cancer screenings and colposcopies. Methods: In 2021, a national sample of 1251 clinicians completed surveys, including 675 clinicians who performed colposcopy; a subset (n=55) of clinicians completed qualitative interviews. Results: Nearly half of all clinicians reported they were currently performing fewer cervical cancer screenings (47%) and colposcopies (44% of those who perform the procedure) than before the pandemic. About one-fifth (18.6%) of colposcopists reported performing fewer LEEPs than prior to the pandemic. Binomial regression analyses indicated that older, as well as internal medicine and family medicine clinicians (compared to OB-GYNs), and those practicing in community health centers (compared to private practice) had higher odds of reporting reduced screening. Among colposcopists, internal medicine physicians and those practicing in community health centers had higher odds of reporting reduced colposcopies. Qualitative interviews highlighted pandemic-related care disruptions and lack of tracking systems to identify overdue screenings. Conclusions: Reductions in cervical cancer screening and colposcopy among nearly half of clinicians more than 1 year into the pandemic raise concerns that inadequate screening and follow-up will lead to future increases in preventable cancers. Funding: This study was funded by the American Cancer Society, who had no role in the study’s design, conduct, or reporting.