Testing key messages about extending cervical screening intervals

Awareness and knowledge about HPV and primary HPV screening among women in Great Britain: An online population-based survey

OBJECTIVES

Human papillomavirus (HPV) primary testing for cervical screening is being implemented around the world. We explored HPV awareness, and knowledge about primary screening in Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), where it has been in place for several years, ahead of extended screening intervals being implemented in England.

SETTING/METHODS

Women aged 18-70 (n = 1995) were recruited by YouGov from their online panel in August 2022. The weighted sample (n = 1930) was population-representative by age, region, education and social grade. We measured HPV awareness, knowledge (excluding those unaware of HPV) using eight true/false items, and understanding of the role of HPV testing in cervical screening.

RESULTS

Overall, 77.6% (1499/1930) of women were aware of HPV. When asked to identify the statement describing how cervical screening works, only 12.2% (236/1930) correctly selected the statement reflecting HPV primary screening (13.5% (194/1436) in screening-eligible women). Excluding those unaware of HPV, most participants had heard about the virus in the context of cervical screening (981/1596; 61.5%) or HPV vaccination (1079/1596; 67.6%). Mean knowledge score was 3.7 out of 8 (SD = 2.2) in this group. Most knew that an HPV-positive result does not mean a woman will definitely develop cervical cancer (1091/1499; 72.8%) but far fewer were aware of the long timeline for HPV to develop into cervical cancer (280/1499; 18.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Only three-quarters of women in Britain are aware of HPV, and knowledge of primary screening is very low, even among screening-age women. This points to continued need for awareness-raising campaigns to ensure informed choice about screening and mitigate public concern when screening intervals are extended.

An intervention to increase cervical cancer screening among women living with HIV: A mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE

We examined the effectiveness of a behavioral intervention in promoting cervical cancer screening among women living with HIV (WLWH) in Ghana.

METHODS

A Mixed-methods study was conducted involving 83 WLWH, who were randomly assigned to an intervention group (n = 42) to receive voice-recorded messages based on the 3 R model (Reframing, Reprioritizing, and Reforming) or a control group (n = 41) to receive standard care. The primary outcomes were screening uptake and HPV prevalence. Other outcomes were the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the intervention.

RESULTS

The intervention group had a 100% screening rate, and the control group had a 14.63% screening rate. The prevalent rate of high-risk (hr)-HPV genotypes among the women was 67.5% (95%C.I: 0.56-0.77). Over 48% of the participants had multiple hr-HPV genotypes, 64.29% had HPV16/18/45%, and 73.21% had HPV 31/33/45/52/58. Of the women (89.30%) who screened positive, 60% of them were diagnosed and treated for pre-cancer lesions. The intervention messages were acceptable (encourage proactive behavior), feasible (simple, easy to understand), and appropriate (helpful, informative). Facilitators and barriers to self-sampling were identified.

CONCLUSION

Combining the 3 R model with self-sampling increases cervical cancer screening among WLWH.

PRACTICE IMPLICATION

Healthcare professionals and policymakers can use this model to increase cervical cancer screening.

Implementation of risk stratification within bowel cancer screening: a community jury study exploring public acceptability and communication needs

BACKGROUND

Population-based cancer screening programmes are shifting away from age and/or sex-based screening criteria towards a risk-stratified approach. Any such changes must be acceptable to the public and communicated effectively. We aimed to explore the social and ethical considerations of implementing risk stratification at three different stages of the bowel cancer screening programme and to understand public requirements for communication.

METHODS

We conducted two pairs of community juries, addressing risk stratification for screening eligibility or thresholds for referral to colonoscopy and screening interval. Using screening test results (where applicable), and lifestyle and genetic risk scores were suggested as potential stratification strategies. After being informed about the topic through a series of presentations and discussions including screening principles, ethical considerations and how risk stratification could be incorporated, participants deliberated over the research questions. They then reported their final verdicts on the acceptability of risk-stratified screening and what information should be shared about their preferred screening strategy. Transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Risk stratification of bowel cancer screening was acceptable to the informed public. Using data within the current system (age, sex and screening results) was considered an obvious next step and collecting additional data for lifestyle and/or genetic risk assessment was also preferable to age-based screening. Participants acknowledged benefits to individuals and health services, as well as articulating concerns for people with low cancer risk, potential public misconceptions and additional complexity for the system. The need for clear and effective communication about changes to the screening programme and individual risk feedback was highlighted, including making a distinction between information that should be shared with everyone by default and additional details that are available elsewhere.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of public acceptability, risk stratification using current data could be implemented immediately, ahead of more complex strategies. Collecting additional data for lifestyle and/or genetic risk assessment was also considered acceptable but the practicalities of collecting such data and how the programme would be communicated require careful consideration.

Attitudes to reducing cervical screening frequency among UK women: A qualitative analysis

OBJECTIVE

Cervical cancer remains a significant health threat amongst women globally despite most cervical cancers being preventable through screening and Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination. With the introduction of HPV testing and vaccination, evidence suggests that the frequency of cervical screening for women can be reduced. However, there is limited evidence on women's attitudes to possible changes to the cervical screening programme. This study explored attitudes, perceptions and beliefs of women in the United Kingdom (UK) regarding potential changes to the National Cervical Screening Programme.

METHOD

Forty-four women were interviewed between November 2018 and March 2019. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes.

RESULTS

Most participants were opposed to any reduction in cervical screening frequency. Reasons included perceptions that disease would develop undetected, disempowerment, increased anxiety, reduced motivation to attend, and inefficient use of health care resources. Women perceived that they were ill-informed about the reasons for the proposed change, and that access to evidence for the basis of proposed changes may persuade them to accept reduced screening frequency. Women believed that cervical screening is a test for cancer and that HPV vaccination does not provide reliable protection against cervical cancer. These beliefs suggest that women's perception that they require more information about the basis for reduced screening frequency is correct.

CONCLUSION

Any changes to cervical screening frequency need to ensure public support and trust through a robust public health initiative clearly identifying the rationale for any changes.

Understanding the Challenges of HPV-Based Cervical Screening: Development and Validation of HPV Testing and Self-Sampling Attitudes and Beliefs Scales

The disrupted introduction of the HPV-based cervical screening program in several jurisdictions has demonstrated that the attitudes and beliefs of screening-eligible persons are critically implicated in the success of program implementation (including the use of self-sampling). As no up-to-date and validated measures exist measuring attitudes and beliefs towards HPV testing and self-sampling, this study aimed to develop and validate two scales measuring these factors. In October-November 2021, cervical screening-eligible Canadians participated in a web-based survey. In total, 44 items related to HPV testing and 13 items related to HPV self-sampling attitudes and beliefs were included in the survey. For both scales, the optimal number of factors was identified using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and parallel analysis. Item Response Theory (IRT) was applied within each factor to select items. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to assess model fit. After data cleaning, 1027 responses were analyzed. The HPV Testing Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (HTABS) had four factors, and twenty-two items were retained after item reduction. The HPV Self-sampling Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (HSABS) had two factors and seven items were retained. CFA showed a good model fit for both final scales. The developed scales will be a valuable resource to examine attitudes and beliefs in anticipation of, and to evaluate, HPV test-based cervical screening.

"A lot can happen in five years": Women's attitudes to extending cervical screening intervals

OBJECTIVE

Evidence suggests that cervical screening intervals can be extended and lifetime cervical screening for human papillomavirus (HPV)-vaccinated women could be reduced. This study examines UK women's attitudes to extending screening intervals and assesses associations between knowledge, risk perception and HPV vaccination status, and acceptability of changes.

METHODS

Using a convenience sampling strategy, an anonymous mixed-methods online survey was used and data recorded from 647 women (mean age = 28.63, SD = 8.69).

RESULTS

Across the full sample, 46.1% of women indicated they would wait 5 years for their next cervical screening, while 60.2% of HPV-vaccinated women would be unwilling to have as few as three cervical screens in a lifetime. Multivariate analysis revealed those who are regular screened, those who intend to attend when invited, and those who perceive greater personal risk of cervical cancer are less likely to accept a 5-year screening interval. Qualitative findings relating to benefits of extending intervals included convenience of less tests, less physical discomfort, and psychological distress. Concerns identified included the likelihood of developing illness, increased psychological distress relating to what may be happening in the body, and worries about increased risk of cervical cancer.

CONCLUSION

Women need clear and specific information about HPV timelines, their relationship with cancer risk, and the rationale for extending screening intervals.

Implementing Risk-Stratified Breast Screening in England: An Agenda Setting Meeting

It is now possible to accurately assess breast cancer risk at routine NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) appointments, provide risk feedback and offer risk management strategies to women at higher risk. These strategies include National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) approved additional breast screening and risk-reducing medication. However, the NHSBSP invites nearly all women three-yearly, regardless of risk. In March 2022, a one-day agenda setting meeting took place in Manchester to discuss the feasibility and desirability of implementation of risk-stratified screening in the NHSBSP. Fifty-eight individuals participated (38 face-to-face, 20 virtual) with relevant expertise from academic, clinical and/or policy-making perspectives. Key findings were presented from the PROCAS2 NIHR programme grant regarding feasibility of risk-stratified screening in the NHSBSP. Participants discussed key uncertainties in seven groups, followed by a plenary session. Discussions were audio-recorded and thematically analysed to produce descriptive themes. Five themes were developed: (i) risk and health economic modelling; (ii) health inequalities and communication with women; (iii); extending screening intervals for low-risk women; (iv) integration with existing NHSBSP; and (v) potential new service models. Most attendees expected some form of risk-stratified breast screening to be implemented in England and collectively identified key issues to be resolved to facilitate this.

Acceptability of extending HPV-based cervical screening intervals from 3 to 5 years: an interview study with women in England

OBJECTIVES

The introduction of primary Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing in the National Health Service (NHS) Cervical Screening Programme in England means the screening interval for 25-49 years can be extended from 3 to 5 years. We explored women's responses to the proposed interval extension.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured phone/video interviews with 22 women aged 25-49 years. Participants were selected to vary in age, socioeconomics and screening history. We explored attitudes to the current 3-year interval, then acceptability of a 5-year interval. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using framework analysis.

RESULTS

Attitudes to the current 3-year interval varied; some wanted more frequent screening, believing cancer develops quickly. Some participants worried about the proposed change; others trusted it was evidence based. Frequent questions concerned the rationale and safety of longer intervals, speed of cancer development, the possibility of HPV being missed or cell changes occurring between screens. Many participants felt reassured when the interval change was explained alongside the move to HPV primary screening, of which most had previously been unaware.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication of the interval change should be done in the context of broader information about HPV primary screening, emphasising that people who test negative for HPV are at lower risk of cell changes so can safely be screened every 5 years. The long time needed for HPV to develop into cervical cancer provides reassurance about safety, but it is important to be transparent that no screening test is perfect.