Explore the vast range of titles available.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends that individuals with a cervix initiate cervical cancer screening at age 25 years and undergo primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years through age 65 years (preferred); if primary HPV testing is not available, then individuals aged 25 to 65 years should be screened with cotesting (HPV testing in combination with cytology) every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years (acceptable) (strong recommendation). The ACS recommends that individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening (qualified recommendation). These new screening recommendations differ in 4 important respects compared with the 2012 recommendations: 1) The preferred screening strategy is primary HPV testing every 5 years, with cotesting and cytology alone acceptable where access to US Food and Drug Administration‐approved primary HPV testing is not yet available; 2) the recommended age to start screening is 25 years rather than 21 years; 3) primary HPV testing, as well as cotesting or cytology alone when primary testing is not available, is recommended starting at age 25 years rather than age 30 years; and 4) the guideline is transitional, ie, options for screening with cotesting or cytology alone are provided but should be phased out once full access to primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening is available without barriers. Evidence related to other relevant issues was reviewed, and no changes were made to recommendations for screening intervals, age or criteria for screening cessation, screening based on vaccination status, or screening after hysterectomy. Follow‐up for individuals who screen positive for HPV and/or cytology should be in accordance with the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk‐based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.

Few women and even fewer African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans complete doctoral degrees in mathematics in the United States. This article proposes a framework for understanding the small numbers of women and students of color who persist in doctoral mathematics based on the notion that academic and social integration are critical to persistence and that integration develops through particular types of participation in the communities of practice of graduate school. An integrated summary of previous research on attrition and persistence of doctoral students identifies particular obstacles faced by women and students of color in doctoral mathematics and directs attention to ways in which faculty and others involved in doctoral education can work to improve the persistence rates, experiences, and diversity of their doctoral students.

The mathematics community in the U.S. has become concerned about the state of doctoral education, including concerns about high attrition rates and the small numbers of women and students from some racial and ethnic groups. This paper proposes a model of doctoral student persistence and attrition, in which student participation in the life of the department and discipline lead to increased student integration, which is crucial for students' success. Ten faculty members and eighteen graduate students were interviewed about their interests, conceptions, and experiences within mathematics, in a case study of one mathematics department. In this department, students experienced four types of obstacles to their participation: obstacles stemming from the program structure, obstacles to participation in class, obstacles to participating with faculty outside of class, and obstacles stemming from faculty beliefs about teaching and learning. Implications for the retention of mathematics doctoral students are discussed.

A student's perception of mathematics is affected both by his interest, ability and by the particular way in which mathematics is taught, therefore, attention is drawn to the task to build a context for mathematics education that is truly accessible and inviting to diverse range of students. The teachers should be proactive in building an inviting educational context, which will help students in succeeding in mathematics and clear the obstacles and interventions while learning mathematics.

Commenting on the film Good Will Hunting , a mathematician noted, “We would do well to remember, in our efforts to include members of underrepresented groups in mathematics, that there can be as much resistance to our efforts from the students we work with as from the system we work in– (Saul 1998, p. 501). In other words, try as we may to include people in mathematics—in our version of mathematics—they might not be interested. Alternatively, some individuals may reject mathematics not out of a sense of choice but because they feel that mathematics has rejected them. Students' reactions to mathematics are affected both by their interests, abilities, and goals and by the particular ways that mathematics is conceived and taught within the mathematics classroom. It is possible that the people who succeed in mathematics are those who are able or willing to adapt themselves to the existing structure of mathematics education in schools. Individuals whose talents, values, skills, or interests make it difficult or undesirable for them to adapt to that structure may not be able to negotiate successfully the educational systems in a way that allows them to succeed in mathematics. In this argument I turn attention away from features of students—for example, their preparation or their ability—and toward our assumptions about mathematics education itself, presenting a unique challenge for us to build a context for mathematics education that is truly accessible and inviting to a broad range of students.

The mathematics community has become concerned about the state of doctoral education in the U.S., including high attrition rates and the under-representation of women and students of diverse racial and ethnic groups. Previous research on the doctoral student experience (over all disciplines) has identified the role of three factors influencing the persistence and attrition of doctoral students: features of the individuals who leave, features of the institutions of study, and features of the academic disciplines. However, there is little discussion of the process by which these factors affect students, nor of mechanisms to remedy the issues of concern. This dissertation presents an integrated summary of research on doctoral student persistence and attrition, and proposes a model of doctoral student persistence and attrition based on Tinto's model of academic integration and Lave and Wenger's concept of legitimate peripheral participation in a community of practice. In this model, student interactions with faculty are crucial for students' persistence toward the Ph.D. If this model holds up to research scrutiny, then it also directs attention to ways universities and departments could work to improve the persistence rates of their doctoral students. Following that, a case study of one mathematics department is presented. Ten faculty members and eighteen graduate students were interviewed about their experiences within mathematics. In this department, students had either limited or predominantly negative interactions with faculty. The results are interpreted in the context of attribution theory. While faculty believe that student success depends on the student's ability and willingness to work hard, the students attributed their success to external causes, such as luck and the nature of the program. Implications for doctoral programs in mathematics are discussed.