A common curriculum in obstetrics and gynecology for medical students globally.

OBJECTIVE: Global variations in women's health outcomes, increased international migration, and an increase in the number of medical schools underpin the need for global standardization in obstetrics and gynecology curricula for medical students. However, there are currently no recommendations regarding the content of a common curriculum. The aim of this project was to agree the objectives for a common curriculum in obstetrics and gynecology for medical students globally. METHODS: The curriculum was developed and agreed by an international taskforce of obstetricians and gynecologists. Published curricula for medical students in a variety of regions globally were reviewed and discussed, and the objectives for a common curriculum in obstetrics and gynecology for medical students were agreed by consensus. RESULTS: The content of the proposed curriculum is classified into three domains: clinical skills, professional behaviors, and knowledge. The recommended curriculum covers health conditions that affect women globally in different social and cultural contexts, and addresses important global health issues of relevance to obstetrics and gynecology. CONCLUSION: The methods and outcomes of a project by an international taskforce of obstetricians and gynecologists to develop a common curriculum in obstetrics and gynecology for medical students globally are presented. More work is required to identify ways in which the curriculum may be adapted to a minimum essential required curriculum in times of man-made or natural disasters. Achieving these will facilitate the intended long-term aims of this curriculum, to improve women's health outcomes globally.

Reasons that clinicians in Australia offer cervical screening outside guidelines for frequency, age and co-testing.

Objectives and importance of study: Changing cancer screening programs is notoriously difficult and may be influenced by clinicians' willingness to adhere to new guidelines. Our objective was to investigate clinicians' adherence to revised cervical screening guidelines and to identify any reasons for testing outside the revised guidelines. METHODS: Australian clinicians involved in cervical screening and treating women with cervical abnormalities were invited to complete a cross-sectional online survey between September 2019 and February 2020. We measured self-reported adherence to cervical screening guidelines for three common scenarios and analysed free-text reasons for offering tests contrary to guidelines using content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 607 clinicians (283 general practitioners [GPs], and 324 obstetricians and gynaecologists [O&Gs]) were eligible and participated. Of these, 37.8% of GPs and 43.8% of O&Gs would provide testing more frequently than indicated by guidelines, but recognised the need for patients to be aware of the additional cost and for guidelines to be explained; 13.9% of GPs and 10.2% of O&Gs would screen women at a younger age than indicated due to patient request, patient/family history and the need for patient reassurance; and 11.4% of GPs and 23.6% of O&Gs would perform a HPV and cytology co-test when not indicated, mainly as a result of a mistake or lack of familiarity with guidelines, patient/family history and patient reassurance. Patient request for testing was a reason for testing outside the guidelines with regard to frequency of testing, age of testing and co-testing. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that it is likely cervical screening outside guidelines is occurring in Australia. As patients often request these tests, strategies to reduce screening outside the guidelines should include ensuring that women are aware of the financial implications and the reasons for the updated guidelines.

Barriers to salpingectomy for permanent contraception: A qualitative study with obstetricians and gynaecologists.

Consideration of risk-reducing bilateral salpingectomy has been recommended instead of tubal occlusive procedures for female sterilisation due to the role of the Fallopian tubes in the aetiology of serous ovarian malignancies. This study identified barriers to performing salpingectomy for permanent contraception. Twenty-two semi-structured interviews were conducted with Australian gynaecologists, and transcripts analysed qualitatively. Barriers to performing bilateral salpingectomy included: (a) patient factors (younger age and risk of regret); (b) operative complexity and complications (particularly risk of bleeding); (c) surgeon factors (lack of awareness of guidelines supporting salpingectomy; less comfort with laparoscopic surgery); and (d) practical system challenges (including cost and equipment availability).

Paucity of data evaluating patient centred outcomes following sentinel lymph node dissection in endometrial cancer: A systematic review.

Sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) is presently used by the majority of gynaecologic oncologists for surgical staging of endometrial cancer. SLND assimilated into routine surgical practice because it increases precision of surgical staging and may reduce morbidity compared to a full, systematic LND. Previous research focussed on the accuracy of SLND. Patient centred outcomes have never been conclusively demonstrated. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate patient centred outcomes of SLND for endometrial cancer patients. Literature published in the last five years (January 2015 to April 2020) was retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library, across five domains: (1) perioperative outcomes; (2) adjuvant treatment; (3) patient-reported outcomes (PROs); (4) lymphedema, and (5) cost. Covidence software ascertained a standardised and monitored review process. We identified 21 eligible studies. Included studies were highly heterogeneous, with widely varying outcome measures and reporting. SLND was associated with shorter operating times and lower estimated blood loss compared to systematic LND, but intra-operative and post-operative complications were not conclusively different. There was either no impact, or a trend towards less adjuvant treatment used in patients with SLND compared to systematic LND. SLND had lower prevalence rates of lymphedema compared to systematic LND, although this was shown only in three retrospective studies. Costs of surgical staging were lowest for no node sampling, followed by SLND, then LND. PROs were unable to be compared because of a lack of studies. The quality of evidence on patient-centred outcomes associated with SLND for surgical staging of endometrial cancer is poor, particularly in PROs, lymphedema and cost. The available studies were vulnerable to bias and confounding. Registration of Systematic Review: PROSPERO (CRD42020180339).

Australian National Cervical Screening Program renewal: Attitudes and experiences of general practitioners, and obstetricians and gynaecologists.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) implemented five-yearly primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening for women aged 25-74. It is important that clinicians are able to explain the NCSP changes to women and confidently address concerns. AIMS: This study examined Australian clinicians' attitudes toward and experiences of the NCSP renewal since its implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of clinicians (general practitioners, obstetricians and gynaecologists) involved in cervical screening, distributed two years after implementation of the renewed NCSP. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Six hundred and seven participants completed the survey. More than 80% of clinicians were comfortable with the main NCSP changes: extended screening intervals, increased age of first screening, and screening test used. However, only 47% of clinicians reported having utilised the National Cancer Screening Register, and a third of clinicians did not believe that self-collection was a reasonable alternative to practitioner-collected screening for under-screened women. Increased demands for colposcopy were reported. All clinicians identified at least one area of educational need, including the management of women with a history of screen-detected abnormalities in the previous program (34.9%), post-colposcopy management for women with no abnormalities detected (25.5%), and screening in complex scenarios (eg immunocompromise) (26.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, Australian clinicians are comfortable with the main changes to the cervical screening program. Certain areas may require further policy review, such as screening in complex clinical scenarios, colposcopy availability, accessibility of the Register and self-collection. These issues could be meaningful for other countries switching to HPV-based screening.

Implementing changes to cervical screening: A qualitative study with health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Profound changes were made to the Australian National Cervical Screening Program in December 2017, which included a reduction in the frequency of screening and a new cervical screening test. AIM: To explore the attitudes and experiences of health professionals practising in Australia since implementation of these changes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with general practitioners, obstetricians and gynaecologists, pathologists and nurses involved in cervical screening Australia-wide. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Overall, health professionals had positive attitudes toward the changes but described many challenges associated with their implementation. Participants discussed practical system challenges, communication and education, finding ways around the guidelines and other perceived 'collateral'. Practical system challenges included increased colposcopy referrals, limited access to the National Cancer Screening Register, a complex primary screening approach, and issues with self-collection. In terms of communication and education, limited public education was recognised, in addition to challenges with particular age groups of women. Finding ways around the guidelines were described, for example over-referring women for co-testing by stating symptoms, which could lead to overtreatment. Other perceived collateral were demonstrated through reduced opportunistic screening opportunities due to less frequent primary care presentations, and concern over the potential for further underscreening in already under-screened populations. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide insight into the challenges health professionals face with renewing programs, in terms of practical issues and unexpected downstream effects which need to be addressed to ensure future implementation of the program is streamlined.

"A Pap smear saved my life": Personal experiences of cervical abnormalities shape attitudes to cervical screening renewal.

OBJECTIVE: In 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program changed from two-yearly Pap smears between ages 18 and 69, to five-yearly human papillomavirus screening between ages 25 and 74 (the "Renewal"). This study investigated attitudes towards the changes, among individuals previously affected by cervical abnormalities/cervical cancer, personally or through a friend/relative. METHODS: We conducted a thematic analysis of comments expressing personal history or a family/friend history of cervical abnormalities/cervical cancer as a reason for opposing changes to the cervical screening program. The comments were taken from a 20% random sample of 19,633 comments posted on the "Change.org" petition "Stop May 1st Changes to Pap Smears - Save Women's Lives" in February-March 2017. RESULTS: There were 831 (20.8%) commenters who reported that they were concerned about a change in screening due to: feelings of increased personal vulnerability to cervical cancer due to their own personal history of cervical abnormalities; comparison of extended screening intervals and later age of first screening to their own experiences; and a perception of increased personal risk due to family history. CONCLUSION: Women previously affected by cervical abnormalities or cervical cancer, personally or through a friend/relative, expressed concern about changes to cervical screening due to perceived increased risk and feeling vulnerable due to personal history.

Salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease: A comparison of surgical approaches.

Given that a significant percentage of high-grade serous cancers develop in the fallopian tube, it has been suggested that salpingectomy may prevent some of these malignancies. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines recommend prophylactic salpingectomy to be discussed with or offered to patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications. This study compares rates of salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy for benign indications across different surgical approaches among Australian and New Zealand gynaecologists. Data were collected via SurgicalPerformance, a web-based surgical outcomes review and feedback software used by independent gynaecologic surgeons. Of 11 477 hysterectomy records available, 6608 were eligible for analysis. Rates of salpingectomy at vaginal hysterectomy (13%) were significantly lower (P < 0.001) compared to open abdominal (65%), laparoscopic (70%), laparoscopic-assisted vaginal (78%), or robotic hysterectomies (73%) and also lower than in hysterectomies converted to an open abdominal approach (73%).

A Thematic Analysis of Attitudes Toward Changes to Cervical Screening in Australia.

BACKGROUND: In December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) was changed to encompass a 5-yearly human papillomavirus (HPV) primary test for women aged 25 to 74 years. Public concerns about changes to screening programs has been demonstrated in other countries previously. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to explore in depth women's understanding of and concerns about the specific changes to the Australian NCSP implemented in December 2017. METHODS: A Web-based petition (Change.org) opposing the changes received over 70,000 signatures and nearly 20,000 comments from February to March 2017. Of 19,633 comments, a random sample of 10% (2000/19,633) were analyzed using content analysis (reported elsewhere). Comments relating directly to the specific changes to the program were further analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: Around one-third (34.55%; 691/2000) of the total comments were related to concerns about specific changes to the program. The greatest concern was that screening intervals would be too long and that cancer may not be detected in time for successful treatment. Missing cancer in younger women (aged <25 years) was also an important concern, perceiving younger women to remain at significant risk. Notably, concern was rarely expressed about the new test (the HPV test). CONCLUSIONS: Gaps in knowledge and understanding about changes to the program and the rationale behind these have caused health concerns among women. Worry about the extended screening interval indicates little understanding of the slow progression of the HPV infection to cervical cancer or the high rates of regression. Identification of these knowledge gaps can inform both deintensification of other cancer screening programs and practitioners, so that they are able to address these concerns with their patients.

'It has saved thousands of lives, so why change it?' Content analysis of objections to cervical screening programme changes in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: The incidence and mortality of cervical cancer have halved since introduction of the Australian cervical screening programme in 1991, involving 2-yearly Pap smears from ages 18-69 years. In 2017, the programme changed to 5- yearly primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for women aged 25-74 years. This study investigated reasons for opposition to the renewed screening programme within the open-ended comments of an online petition, 'Stop May 1st Changes to Pap Smears-Save Women's Lives', opposing the changes, which received over 70 000 signatures and almost 20 000 comments. METHODS: Content analysis of a random sample of 2000 comments, reflecting 10% of the 19 633 comments posted in February-March 2017. RESULTS: Nineteen codes were identified, reflecting four themes: (1) valuing women's health and rights, (2) political statements, (3) concerns about healthcare funding cuts and (4) opposition to specific components of the new screening programme. The most prevalent codes were: placing value on women's health (33%), concerns about increasing screening intervals (17%) and opposition to the changes related to personal experiences with cervical cancer or cervical abnormalities (15%). Concern about the key change in technology (HPV testing instead of Pap smears) was expressed in less than 3% of comments, and some opposition to the changes from health professionals was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Screening changes within this selected group were perceived as threatening women's health, as a political policy created by male decision-makers and as a cost-cutting exercise. Many commenters were concerned about increased screening intervals and later screening onset, but little opposition was expressed regarding the testing technology itself. This analysis may inform public education and communication strategies for future changes to cervical screening programmes internationally, to pre-emptively address specific concerns about the changes.