Doctor and patient awareness of treatment options for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1 (CIN 1): a survey questionnaire approach

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate doctors’ and patients’ perceptions of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1 (CIN 1) and its treatment methods. A survey questionnaire was offered to obstetrics and gynaecology doctors and patients with CIN 1 in 2017. Only 43% of patients knew of this disease. Regarding perceptions of its aetiology, 64% of the patients perceived human papillomavirus infection to be the main cause of CIN 1. Patients’ most preferred treatments were medication (20%), followed by alternative treatment (14%). Among doctors, regular follow-up was the most preferred method for managing CIN 1. The survey showed that current treatment modalities for CIN 1 were satisfactory to only half of doctors (50%) and patients (53%). Overall, 70% of doctors responded that new drug development for CIN 1 is needed. Although, CIN 1 is a low-grade lesion, doctors and patients expressed the desire for new therapeutic agents to manage it.

IMPACT STATEMENT

• What is already known on this subject? In general, treatment is not recommended for CIN 1 because lesions are considered indicative of transient HPV infection and spontaneously regress in most patients.

• What do the results of this study add? Regular follow-up for CIN 1 were satisfactory to only half of doctors and patients. Thirty-six percent of patients wanted active treatment instead of regular follow-up. In addition, 70% of doctors responded that new drug development for CIN 1 is needed.

• What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Our results support the need for therapeutic agents for CIN 1.

Keywords:

• Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1
• treatment
• doctors
• patients
• survey
• questionnaire

Acknowledgements

We are most grateful to everyone who participated in this study. The study was supported by BioLeaders Corporation.

Disclosure statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest