The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201600293

Abstract

Objective:

This study aimed to determine cervical cancer screening rates among women with severe mental illness.

Methods:

California Medicaid administrative records (2010–2011) for 31,308 women with severe mental illness were examined. Participants received specialty mental health services and were not dually eligible for Medicare. Poisson models assessed association between selected predictors and cervical cancer screening.

Results:

Overall, 20.2% of women with severe mental illness received cervical cancer screening during the one-year period. Compared with white women, Asian women (adjusted risk ratio [ARR]=1.23), black women (ARR=1.10), and Hispanic women (ARR=1.11) (p<.001) were more likely to have been screened. Women ages 28–37 were more likely than those ages 18–27 to have been screened (ARR=1.31, p<.001). Evidence of other health care use was the strongest predictor of screening (ARR=3.07, p<.001).

Conclusions:

Most women in the sample were not regularly screened for cervical cancer. Cervical cancer screening for this high-risk population should be prioritized.

The incidence of and mortality rate from cervical cancer decreased in the United States between 1975 and 2013 (1). These successes have been largely attributed to widespread cervical cancer screening and consensus among major national organizations in regard to recommended screening guidelines (2). Despite these gains, access to care remains a critical issue among marginalized populations of women, in which cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates remain several times higher than in the general U.S. population (3,4).

Studies comparing cervical cancer screening rates among women with severe mental illness and women in the general U.S. population have yielded conflicting results (57). Some studies have found that women with severe mental illness and women in the general U.S. population report similar cervical cancer screening rates (5). However, other studies have found lower rates of screening among women with severe mental illness, particularly among older women, those with a history of substance use, and those living with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders (8,9). The conflicting results may be partly attributable to the use of self-report data, which can overestimate screening and underestimate racial and ethnic disparities (10). In addition, the lack of integration between specialty mental health and primary care further complicates accurate assessment of screening (4).

In this study, we characterized cervical cancer screening rates among one of the largest known cohorts of women with severe mental illness served in specialty mental health settings.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included women between the ages of 18 and 67 who were enrolled in California Medicaid (Medi-Cal) and received care in a California specialty mental health clinic between October 1, 2010, and September 30, 2011. A detailed description of the cohort in the parent study has been published previously (11). Of the 31,308 patients included in the study, 38% were white, 19% were black, 19% were Hispanic, 13% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 10% identified as another race-ethnicity. Most had schizophrenia spectrum disorders (42%) or major depressive disorder (29%). Most women (74%) had evidence of use of primary care in the prior year. [A table in an online supplement to this report presents these and other descriptive statistics.]

All data were extracted from Medi-Cal and the Client and Service Information system, which collects client-level data from California’s county mental health programs. The data set consisted of administrative, pharmacy, and billing information that was combined, deidentified, and provided to the study investigators by the Data and Research Committee of the California Department of Health Care Services. Rural counties with few observations were grouped with counties of similar size, region, and demographic characteristics. To estimate the annual cervical cancer screening rate of the general U.S. population, we solved the equation p3=1–(1–p1)3 for p1, the annual rate, where p3 is the 2010 estimate of the California triennial screening rate published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (12). This estimator calculates the cumulative proportion of women screened within a three-year period as the complement of the proportion who remain unscreened throughout the three years, under the simplifying assumption that the annual screening rate is constant and does not depend on having been screened the previous year.

The primary outcome measure was evidence of cervical cancer screening from individual Medi-Cal records. This was identified through Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes regarding gynecologic cytology and Pap smear collection/screening (CPT/HCPCS 88141–88143, 88147, 88148, 88150, 88155, 88164, 88167, 88174, and 88175).

Potential predictors of cervical cancer screening included age, race-ethnicity, county of residence (rural versus urban), presence of a diagnosis of severe mental illness described in parent study (11), a history of drug or alcohol use as documented by mental health providers, and evidence of health care utilization. Severe mental illness was defined as a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder, anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, or another axis I diagnosis by a mental health provider.

Poisson models with robust standard errors were used to evaluate whether predictor variables were associated with cervical cancer screening. For each predictor, we fit two Poisson models. The first was unadjusted, and the second was adjusted for confounders identified by using a directed acyclic graph (or causal graph); any mediating effects were excluded. All data were analyzed with Stata Statistical Software, Release 13.2.

The study was approved by the University of California, San Francisco, Committee of Human Research (11–06939), the State of California Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (FWA00000681), and the Data and Research Committee of the California Department of Health Care Services (IRB00000552).

Results

Among Medi-Cal enrollees with severe mental illness between the ages of 18 and 67, 20.2% (N=6,332) received cervical cancer screening within the one-year study period. The percentage of women of various races and ethnicities who were screened for cervical cancer ranged from 19.0% among white women (N=2,242 of 11,809), 20.9% among black women (N=1,265 of 6,059), and 22.5% among Asian women (N=943 of 4,192). By comparison, the annual cervical cancer screening rate of the general population in California in 2010 was calculated to be 42.3%.

Table 1 presents the analysis of potential predictors of screening in the sample, controlling for age, race-ethnicity, and county type. In general, Asian (ARR=1.23), black (ARR=1.10), and Hispanic (ARR=1.11) women with severe mental illness were significantly more likely to have been screened for cervical cancer during the study period compared with their white counterparts (p<.001). Women ages 28–47 were significantly more likely than those ages 18–27 to have been screened (ARRs=1.31–1.32, p<.001). No significant difference in screening rates was found for women with severe mental illness who had a history of drug or alcohol use. When the analysis controlled for a history of drug or alcohol use, women with bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, or generalized anxiety disorder were significantly more likely than those with schizophrenia to have been screened (ARRs=1.18–1.26, p<.001). Patients with evidence of health care use were significantly more likely than those without such evidence to have been screened (ARR=3.07, p<.001).

TABLE 1. Analysis of predictors of cervical cancer screening among 31,308 women with severe mental illness

CharacteristicUnadjusted analysisAdjusted analysisa
RRb95% CIpARRc95% CIp
Age (reference: 18–27)d,e<.001<.001
 28–371.311.15–1.501.311.16–1.49
 38–471.321.16–1.501.321.17–1.49
 48–571.14.96–1.351.14.97–1.33
 58–67.91.66–1.24.90.69–1.19
Race-ethnicity (reference: white)d<.001<.001
 Asian/Pacific Islander1.101.01–1.401.231.04–1.44
 Black1.101.02–1.191.101.02–1.18
 Hispanic1.111.04–1.181.111.05–1.18
 Other1.00.92–1.091.03.95–1.12
Rural county (reference: urban)d1.11.97–1.26.1191.161.03–1.31.014
Diagnosis (reference: schizophrenia spectrum disorder)f<.001<.001
 Anxiety disorder1.281.14–1.451.261.12–1.43
 Bipolar disorder1.171.10–1.251.181.10–1.26
 Major depressive disorder1.211.13–1.301.211.13–1.29
 Other1.05.86–1.301.06.86–1.31
History of drug or alcohol use (reference: no)g1.02.96–1.07.6061.01.96–1.07.709
Evidence of health care utilization (reference: no)h3.032.44–3.75<.0013.072.49–3.78<.001

aEach adjusted model depended on the specific variable and its position, along with a directed acyclic graph (DAG or causal graph). A DAG was created to identify confounders and mediators of the predictors of interest.

bRisk ratio

cAdjusted risk ratio

dThe adjusted model controlled for the main demographic variables (race-ethnicity and age) and county type (urban or rural), unless the variable was the predictor variable of interest.

eThe age categories were those provided by the California Department of Health Care Services to the study investigators.

fThe adjusted model controlled for the main demographic variables, county type, and history of substance use.

gThe adjusted model controlled for the main demographic variables, county type, and axis I diagnosis.

hThe adjusted model controlled for the main demographic variables, county type, axis I diagnosis, and history of substance use.

TABLE 1. Analysis of predictors of cervical cancer screening among 31,308 women with severe mental illness

Enlarge table

Discussion

This study found that only 20% of women with severe mental illness received cervical cancer screening within the one-year study period, a screening rate less than half of that in the general population of women in California during the same period (42%) (12). The findings are concerning because these women were receiving public health services (in specialty mental health settings), but it appears that they did not receive preventive services as often as women in the general population. In addition, because women with severe mental illness may be at an increased risk of invasive cervical cancer because of the prevalence of risk factors, such as high rates of smoking and larger numbers of lifetime sexual partners (1315), the lack of screening is particularly problematic.

The results indicate a need to prioritize women’s health screenings in specialty mental health settings, in addition to previously identified areas of focus, such as improving metabolic screening (8). One solution might include conceptualizing the specialty mental health clinic as the medical home and holding a “women’s mini-clinic” on site once a month. This might be akin to the primary care satellite clinics that were piloted over the past few years by the Primary and Behavioral Health Care Integration program of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Another solution might involve creating a registry of cervical cancer screening status of all women in these specialty mental health clinics so that their providers could prioritize referrals to primary care or gynecology services.

Second, we found that cervical cancer screening rates differed among diagnostic groups of women with severe mental illness, such that women with psychotic disorders had significantly lower rates of screening than women with other major psychiatric diagnoses. The pronounced cognitive, psychosocial, and behavioral deficiencies often reported among persons with psychotic disorders may play a role in especially low rates of use of preventive health services.

We also found that women from minority racial-ethnic groups had significantly higher rates of cervical cancer screening than their white counterparts, with Asian women having the highest rate overall. This finding is interesting given that screening rates among Asian women have been previously reported to be lower than those among other racial-ethnic groups because of cultural and psychosocial beliefs, decreased access to care, and lack of knowledge about preventive care (9). Future research should aim to assess the validity of self-reported cancer screening data in this population to determine whether systematic underreporting is a factor contributing to this discrepancy.

Women with severe mental illness ages 28–47 were significantly more likely than women ages 18–27 to have had cervical cancer screening. In 2009, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published recommendations that cervical cancer screening begin at age 21. As a result of these guideline changes, women ages 18–21 might have lower rates of cervical cancer screening. However, this finding may also reflect transitioning guidelines during the time of data collection; in 2012, national organizations reached a consensus to increase the routine cervical cancer screening interval from two to three years (2).

Not surprisingly, use of primary care was an important mediating factor that facilitated higher rates of cervical cancer screening, because such tests are typically performed in a primary care environment. This finding is consistent with our prior studies of screening for other health indicators (11). As such, improving primary care access for this vulnerable population may be critical for improving overall screening rates. Although improving access may seem straightforward, more work is needed to address previously identified barriers to use of primary care for this population, including difficulties with transport and access, adverse experiences, fear of mistreatment, embarrassment, and history of sexual assault (5).

This study had several limitations. First, patients dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare were excluded, and thus screening rates may not reflect rates for the entire population with severe mental illness. In addition, data on cervical cancer screening not billed to Medicaid was not captured, which could have led to an underestimation of screening rates. This study was limited to one year of retrospective cervical cancer screening data—instead of three years—and included only California women with severe mental illness in contact with the public specialty mental health system. These factors may affect generalizability. In addition, our comparison group was the general California population, rather than California Medicaid recipients without severe mental illness. The comparison group might have received better cervical cancer screening in general, compared with the Medicaid population; thus the findings may overstate disparities in care received by people with severe mental illness. In addition, the screening rates of the comparison population were self-reported, rather than derived from billing data, which also affected the accuracy of the comparison. Finally, we were unable with the data that were available to address the impact of poverty (including transportation costs) and how health care decisions might have been made (for example, prioritizing mental health care over preventive screening).

Conclusions

Cervical cancer screening remains suboptimal among women with severe mental illness served in the public health system. The alarmingly low rates of screening among women with severe mental illness represent an unmet public health need, and action to alleviate this disparity should be a priority. Future research should aim to better understand the inadequate nature of cancer care in this population, working not only to reduce the cervical cancer–related mortality gap that exists between persons with severe mental illness and the general U.S. population but also to remove access barriers to care.

Dr. James was with the Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Weill Institute for Neurosciences at the time of the study. Dr. Thomas, Dr. Frolov, Mr. Riano, and Dr. Mangurian are with the Department of Psychiatry, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences. Dr. Vittinghoff is with the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Dr. Schillinger is with the Department of Medicine, UCSF School of Medicine. Dr. Newcomer is with the Department of Integrated Medical Sciences, Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.
Send correspondence to Dr. Mangurian (e-mail: ).

Dr. Thomas was supported by a UCSF Hellman Fellows Award for Early-Career Faculty and by UCSF–Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UCSF-CTSI) grant KL2RR024130 from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Schillinger was supported by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grant P30DK092924 and by NIH center grant P60MD006902 from the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Mangurian was supported by National Institute of Mental Health career development grant K23MH093689, by the UCSF Hellman Fellows Award for Early-Career Faculty, and by UCSF-CTSI grant KL2RR024130.

Dr. Newcomer reports receipt of grant support from Otsuka America Pharmaceutical Inc., consulting fees from Reviva Pharmaceuticals and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and service on a data safety monitoring board for Amgen. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

This study was initiated during a state quality improvement project to integrate primary care and mental health care, called the California Mental Health Care Management Program (CalMEND). The project was a collaboration between the California Department of Mental Health and the Pharmacy Benefits Division of the California Department of Health Care Services. Study investigators acknowledge CalMEND staff for their assistance in combining administrative databases without compensation.

References

1 Howlader N, Noone A, Krapcho M, et al.: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2013. Bethesda, MD, National Cancer Institute, 2016Google Scholar

2 Practice Bulletin no. 157: cervical cancer screening and prevention. Obstetrics and Gynecology 127:e1–e20, 2016Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

3 Aggarwal A, Pandurangi A, Smith W: Disparities in breast and cervical cancer screening in women with mental illness: a systematic literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 44:392–398, 2013Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

4 Spence AR, Goggin P, Franco EL: Process of care failures in invasive cervical cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Preventive Medicine 45:93–106, 2007Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

5 Owen C, Jessie D, De Vries Robbe M: Barriers to cancer screening amongst women with mental health problems. Health Care for Women International 23:561–566, 2002Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

6 Martens PJ, Chochinov HM, Prior HJ, et al.: Are cervical cancer screening rates different for women with schizophrenia? A Manitoba population-based study. Schizophrenia Research 113:101–106, 2009Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

7 Lindamer LA, Buse DC, Auslander L, et al.: A comparison of gynecological variables and service use among older women with and without schizophrenia. Psychiatric Services 54:902–904, 2003LinkGoogle Scholar

8 Druss BG, von Esenwein SA, Compton MT, et al.: A randomized trial of medical care management for community mental health settings: the Primary Care Access, Referral, and Evaluation (PCARE) study. American Journal of Psychiatry 167:151–159, 2010LinkGoogle Scholar

9 Fang CY, Ma GX, Tan Y: Overcoming barriers to cervical cancer screening among Asian American women. North American Journal of Medicine and Science 4:77–83, 2011CrossrefGoogle Scholar

10 Rauscher GH, Johnson TP, Cho YI, et al: Accuracy of self-reported cancer-screening histories: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers 17:748–757, 2008Google Scholar

11 Mangurian C, Newcomer JW, Vittinghoff E, et al.: Diabetes screening among underserved adults with severe mental illness who take antipsychotic medications. JAMA Internal Medicine 175:1977–1979, 2015Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

12 2010: women aged 18+ who have had a Pap test within the past three years; in Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (California). Atlanta, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010Google Scholar

13 Tilbrook D, Polsky J, Lofters A: Are women with psychosis receiving adequate cervical cancer screening? Canadian Family Physician 56:358–363, 2010MedlineGoogle Scholar

14 Miller LJ, Finnerty M: Sexuality, pregnancy, and childrearing among women with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Psychiatric Services 47:502–506, 1996LinkGoogle Scholar

15 Franco EL, Duarte-Franco E, Ferenczy A: Cervical cancer: epidemiology, prevention and the role of human papillomavirus infection. Canadian Medical Association Journal 164:1017–1025, 2001Google Scholar