Skip to main content
PMC home page
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 1993 May;43(370):194–198.

Does feedback improve the quality of cervical smears? A randomized controlled trial.

F Buntinx 1, J A Knottnerus 1, H F Crebolder 1, T Seegers 1, G G Essed 1, H Schouten 1
PMCID: PMC1372391  PMID: 8347386

Abstract

In a randomized controlled trial three methods of feedback of increasing intensity, directed at 183 doctors taking cervical smears, were compared with respect to their effects on the sampling quality of smears. Overall, feedback was found to have no influence on quality criteria in the crude data analysis. However, a significantly larger decrease in the percentage of smears lacking endocervical cells was found in the groups receiving monthly overviews of their results with peer comparison, when compared with the groups not receiving this type of feedback (odds ratio 0.75). Moreover, feedback appeared to have a clear effect on the presence of endocervical cells among doctors submitting a substantial number of smears in the intervention period, as opposed to those who submitted fewer smears. A positive correlation was also observed between the increase in the group mean of the proportions of smears containing pathological cells and the intensity of the feedback. However, this increase did not reach statistical significance. This study suggests that monthly feedback with peer comparison may have a positive relationship with some aspects of quality improvement in cervical screening.

Full text

PDF
194

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baker R. M. Improving the adequacy of Pap smears. Am Fam Physician. 1989 Jun;39(6):109–114. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Boon M. E., Alons-van Kordelaar J. J., Rietveld-Scheffers P. E. Consequences of the introduction of combined spatula and Cytobrush sampling for cervical cytology. Improvements in smear quality and detection rates. Acta Cytol. 1986 May-Jun;30(3):264–270. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Buntinx F., Boon M. E., Beck S., Knottnerus J. A., Essed G. G. Comparison of Cytobrush sampling, spatula sampling and combined Cytobrush-spatula sampling of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol. 1991 Jan-Feb;35(1):64–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Buntinx F., Crebolder H. F., Knottnerus J. A., Essed G. G. Cervical smear sampling quality. Lancet. 1991 Apr 13;337(8746):926–927. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90269-u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Buntinx F., Essed G. G., Crebolder H. F., Knottnerus J. A. Geographical variations in the sampling quality of cervical smears. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1991 Dec 13;42(3):227–230. doi: 10.1016/0028-2243(91)90225-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Buntinx F., Knottnerus J. A., Crebolder H. F., Essed G. G. Reactions of doctors to various forms of feedback designed to improve the sampling quality of cervical smears. Qual Assur Health Care. 1992 Jun;4(2):161–166. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Buntinx F., Knottnerus J. A., Crebolder H. F., Essed G. G., Schouten H. Relation between quality of cervical smears and probability of abnormal results. BMJ. 1992 May 9;304(6836):1224–1224. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6836.1224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Eisenberg J. M., Williams S. V. Cost containment and changing physicians' practice behavior. Can the fox learn to guard the chicken coop? JAMA. 1981 Nov 13;246(19):2195–2201. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fraser C. G., Woodford F. P. Strategies to modify the test-requesting patterns of clinicians. Ann Clin Biochem. 1987 May;24(Pt 3):223–231. doi: 10.1177/000456328702400301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kivlahan C., Ingram E. Papanicolaou smears without endocervical cells. Are they inadequate? Acta Cytol. 1986 May-Jun;30(3):258–260. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Knipschild P., Leffers P., Feinstein A. R. The qualification period. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(6):461–464. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90208-q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Marton K. I., Tul V., Sox H. C., Jr Modifying test-ordering behavior in the outpatient medical clinic. A controlled trial of two educational interventions. Arch Intern Med. 1985 May;145(5):816–821. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Mauney M., Eide D., Sotham J. Rates of condyloma and dysplasia in Papanicolaou smears with and without endocervical cells. Diagn Cytopathol. 1990;6(1):18–21. doi: 10.1002/dc.2840060106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Mitchell H., Medley G. Longitudinal study of women with negative cervical smears according to endocervical status. Lancet. 1991 Feb 2;337(8736):265–267. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90870-u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Mitchell M. W., Fowkes F. G. Audit reviewed: does feedback on performance change clinical behaviour? J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1985 Oct;19(4):251–254. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES