Objective. To examine reasons for the adoption of liquid‐based cervical cancer screening tests. Data Sources/Study Setting. A mailed survey of 250 family physicians and 250 gynecologists in Maryland in 2000. Additional data were obtained from the AMA Master File of Physicians. Study Design. Key outcome variables in this cross‐sectional survey were early adoption of a liquid‐based test by the end of 1997 and overall adoption by the time of the survey. Adoption was viewed in terms of a supply and demand theoretical framework with marketing influencing physician and patient demand as well as supply by insurance companies and laboratories. Data Collection. Random samples of family physicians and gynecologists were selected from the AMA Master File of Physicians. The overall response rate was 61.9 percent. Principal Findings. By 2000, 96 percent of gynecologists and 75 percent of family physicians in Maryland were using liquid‐based cervical cancer screening tests, most commonly the ThinPrep® Pap Test™. Gynecologists were more likely than family physicians to have been early adopters (34 percent versus 5 percent, p<.01). Part of this variation in adoption was due to aggressive marketing to gynecologists, who were more likely than family physicians to receive information in the mail from the test manufacturer (89 percent versus 56 percent, p<.01) and to have been informed by the manufacturer that a patient had inquired about physicians' use of the test (22 percent versus 8 percent, p<.01). Conclusions. The rapid diffusion of liquid‐based cervical cancer screening tests occurred despite general agreement that the Pap smear has been one of the most successful cancer prevention interventions ever. Commercial marketing campaigns appear to contribute to the more rapid rate of diffusion of technology among specialists compared with generalists.

An important aspect of the mandate assessments requested by the California legislature is a review of the scientific and medical literature on the medical effectiveness of the proposed health insurance benefit mandate. Although such a review bears many similarities to effectiveness reviews that might be undertaken for publication as research studies, several important differences arise from the requirements of the California legislation. Our reviews are intended to assist the legislators in deciding whether to support a specific mandate to modify health insurance benefits in a particular way. Thus, our assessments focus on how the scientific literature bears on the proposed mandate, which may involve a complicated chain of potential effects leading from altered coverage to ultimate impact on health. Evidence may be available for only some of the links in the chain. Furthermore, not all the evidence may be directly applicable to the diverse population of California or the subpopulation affected by the mandate. The mandate reviews, including the medical effectiveness analyses, may be used in a potentially contentious decision making setting. The legislative calendar requires that they need to be timely, yet they must be as valid, credible, and based on the best information available as possible. The focus on applicability also implies the need for informed, technical decisions concerning the relevance of the articles for the report, and these decisions need to be made as transparent as possible. These goals and constraints yield an approach that differs somewhat from an investigator‐initiated review of the literature.