Objectives: Timely colposcopic evaluation is a critical step in the secondary prevention of cervical cancer. However, fewer, if any, studies have ever examined what patients understand about this procedure as they are referred for evaluation. Therefore, we sought to assess the understanding of colposcopy and how it is mediated by the discussion of screening test results with a primary care provider (PCP) among medically underserved women prior to undergoing this procedure. Methods: After obtaining IRB approval, women aged 18-64 years were consecutively invited to complete a survey in either Spanish or English as they presented to a specialized colposcopy clinic serving a network of 16 urban community health centers. The survey assessed subject demographics, patterns of care, knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of HPV, cervical dysplasia, colposcopy, and interactions with their PCP and the primary care team around the results of their pap test. Responses to survey items were compared among subjects who responded that their primary care provider had discussed their pap test results with them versus those who did not. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to assess statistical significance for categorical variables, student’s t-test for normally distributed continuous variables, and Wilcoxon rank test for non-normal or ranked variables (SAS, Inc). Results: A total of 248 subjects completed the survey. The median subject age was 40 years. A majority self-identified as Hispanic/ Latina (n=179, 73.3%), and 176 (70.9%) reported that they had been born outside the United States. When asked if their PCP had discussed their recent pap test results, 101 subjects (43.7%) responded “no.” A total of 111 subjects (50.9%) also reported that no one on their primary care team had explained colposcopy. Across multiple response categories, reported provider interactions increased insight into HPV infection and the natural history of cervical dysplasia. However, these interactions also heightened patient concerns regarding the impact of HPV on their partners. They had no significant impact on the patient’s concerns about the procedure. Of note, 105 women (45.3%) reported obtaining information about HPV infection and cervical dysplasia from individuals on the primary care team or their PCP, as well as other sources. Most subjects (n=184; 82.9%) indicated that they would like to have received more information about colposcopy. However, only 46 (21.2%) actually sought out additional information before visiting the colposcopy clinic. Conclusions: Although patients presenting for colposcopy commonly report that their [MJR1] PCP discussed their abnormal pap test results with them, many patients lack understanding of the next steps in their evaluation and seek information from a variety of sources. These results identify an important opportunity to educate patients about colposcopy, which could potentially improve compliance and timeliness of diagnostic follow-up and improve cervical cancer prevention among medically underserved women. Objectives: Timely colposcopic evaluation is a critical step in the secondary prevention of cervical cancer. However, fewer, if any, studies have ever examined what patients understand about this procedure as they are referred for evaluation. Therefore, we sought to assess the understanding of colposcopy and how it is mediated by the discussion of screening test results with a primary care provider (PCP) among medically underserved women prior to undergoing this procedure. Methods: After obtaining IRB approval, women aged 18-64 years were consecutively invited to complete a survey in either Spanish or English as they presented to a specialized colposcopy clinic serving a network of 16 urban community health centers. The survey assessed subject demographics, patterns of care, knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of HPV, cervical dysplasia, colposcopy, and interactions with their PCP and the primary care team around the results of their pap test. Responses to survey items were compared among subjects who responded that their primary care provider had discussed their pap test results with them versus those who did not. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to assess statistical significance for categorical variables, student’s t-test for normally distributed continuous variables, and Wilcoxon rank test for non-normal or ranked variables (SAS, Inc). Results: A total of 248 subjects completed the survey. The median subject age was 40 years. A majority self-identified as Hispanic/ Latina (n=179, 73.3%), and 176 (70.9%) reported that they had been born outside the United States. When asked if their PCP had discussed their recent pap test results, 101 subjects (43.7%) responded “no.” A total of 111 subjects (50.9%) also reported that no one on their primary care team had explained colposcopy. Across multiple response categories, reported provider interactions increased insight into HPV infection and the natural history of cervical dysplasia. However, these interactions also heightened patient concerns regarding the impact of HPV on their partners. They had no significant impact on the patient’s concerns about the procedure. Of note, 105 women (45.3%) reported obtaining information about HPV infection and cervical dysplasia from individuals on the primary care team or their PCP, as well as other sources. Most subjects (n=184; 82.9%) indicated that they would like to have received more information about colposcopy. However, only 46 (21.2%) actually sought out additional information before visiting the colposcopy clinic. Conclusions: Although patients presenting for colposcopy commonly report that their [MJR1] PCP discussed their abnormal pap test results with them, many patients lack understanding of the next steps in their evaluation and seek information from a variety of sources. These results identify an important opportunity to educate patients about colposcopy, which could potentially improve compliance and timeliness of diagnostic follow-up and improve cervical cancer prevention among medically underserved women.