Are Health Care Professionals Prepared to Implement Human Papillomavirus Testing? A Review of Psychosocial Determinants of Human Papillomavirus Test Acceptability in Primary Cervical Cancer Screening

On the path toward cervical cancer elimination in Canada: a national survey of factors influencing women's intentions to participate in human papillomavirus test-based primary cervical screening

Background

HPV test-based primary cervical screening is replacing cytology in Canada. In other countries, women's unpreparedness and concerns hindered the transition and post-implementation screening uptake. We investigated psychosocial correlates of intentions of screening in eligible individuals to participate in HPV-based primary cervical screening.

Methods

We conducted a nationwide web-based survey of individuals aged 21-70 years in 2022 and oversampled under-screened individuals. We used five Canadian-validated scales to measure HPV test-based screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs. Using the multistage Precaution Adoption Process Model, we assessed women's stage of intentions to participate in HPV testing and self-sampling. We estimated associations of psychosocial factors with intentions' stage using multinomial logistic regression.

Findings

In both groups (adequately screened n = 1778; under-screened n = 1570), higher HPV knowledge was associated with intention for HPV testing and more personal barriers to the HPV test were associated with lower intentions to participate in HPV testing or use of self-sampling. In both groups, higher self-sampling concerns were associated with lower intentions for self-sampling and higher women's need for autonomy was associated with increased intentions for self-sampling. In the under-screened group, increased age was associated with lower intentions for HPV testing and self-sampling, while living in Canada for <10 years was associated with higher intentions.

Interpretation

Our results could be used by policymakers and healthcare professionals to design communication strategies and ensure a smooth transition to HPV-based primary cervical screening, especially for under-screened individuals.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research project grant 165905.

Prevalence and Description of High-Grade Intraepithelial Lesions of Cervical Mucosa Cells in a Screening Programme for Cervical Cancer in Isère, France

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to analyse high-grade intraepithelial lesions (LIEHG) observed in a screening programme from 2010 to 2018 to more accurately describe them and formulate recommendations for best practices in the context of screening evolution following the introduction of an HPV test in primary cervical cancer screening in 2020.

METHODS

This study included 305,940 asymptomatic women aged 25-65 years. The eligible population was invited to undergo a screening cervico-uterine-smear every 3 years. If this smear was normal, the woman received a new invitation. In the case of a positive screen, the patient underwent further diagnostic procedures, such as colposcopy and biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. Only those diagnosed with LIEHG and above proceeded to treatment. The diagnoses associated with LIEHG were those related to the WHO Classification of tumours of the uterine cervix.

RESULTS

Positive smears led to the diagnosis of 3230 LIEHG. The prevalence of LIEHG in the screened population was 0.4%. The LIEHG distribution varied significantly according to the age of the women. The probability of diagnosing LIEHG in young women was 12.2% at 25-29 years. This probability decreased by half after 50 years. We observed that the type of smear was significantly associated with LIEHG detection. The positive predictive value for diagnosing LIEHG was 70.3% for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) smears and 35.1% for atypical squamous cells cannot exclude HSIL (ASC-H) smears.

CONCLUSION

In the study population, the prevalence of LIEHG was high in women under 35 years. Low-grade smears were correlated with the risk of LIEHG and should prompt screening facilities to allocate resources to ensure active follow-up of LSIL and ASC-US smears. Adherence to cytological screening recommendations was associated with a reduced risk of LIEHG in multivariate analysis.

HPV self-sampling among women in the United States: preferences for implementation

PURPOSE

With the inclusion of primary HPV testing in 2018 U.S. Preventive Services Taskforce guidelines, at-home HPV self-sampling may provide a future option for cervical cancer screening, especially among hard-to-reach populations in the U.S. This study evaluated the association of implementation preferences with the willingness of at-home HPV self-sampling.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study in 2018 among U.S. women ages 30-65 years, without a hysterectomy (n = 812). The outcome was willingness to have at-home HPV self-sampling (yes/no). Primary predictor variables (i.e., information source, methods of payment, methods of sending or receiving self-sampling kits) measured self-sampling implementation preferences. Adjusted logistic regression identified associations with willingness to have at-home HPV self-sampling.

RESULTS

Participants who preferred receiving information from healthcare providers (OR = 2.64; 95% CI 1.54,4.52) or from media or other sources (OR = 2.30; 95% CI 1.51,3.48) had higher HPV self-sampling willingness than participants who did not prefer those sources. Participants who did not want to pay for self-sampling (OR = 0.21; 95% CI 0.14,0.32) or did not know if they would pay for self-sampling (OR = 0.35; 95% CI 0.22,0.54) had lower odds of HPV self-sampling willingness compared to participants willing to pay. Participants who did not know which method they preferred for receiving a self-sampling kit (OR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.07,0.31) or preferred delivering the sample to the lab themselves (OR = 0.59; 95% CI 0.36,0.96) had lower odds for self-sampling willingness compared to participants who preferred the mail.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the preferences of women regarding the implementation of HPV self-sampling can improve uptake in cervical cancer screening, especially among hard-to-reach populations.

Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of healthcare professionals: A mixed methods systematic review and recommendations to support implementation

BACKGROUND

Introduction of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes has the potential to optimise resource allocation by targeting screening towards members of the population who will benefit from it most. Endorsement from healthcare professionals is necessary to facilitate successful development and implementation of risk-stratified interventions. Therefore, this review aims to explore whether using risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes is acceptable to healthcare professionals and to identify any requirements for successful implementation.

METHODS

We searched four electronic databases from January 2010 to October 2021 for quantitative, qualitative, or primary mixed methods studies reporting healthcare professional and/or other stakeholder opinions on acceptability of risk-stratified population-based cancer screening. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using the Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach to mixed methods analysis and mapped onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research using a 'best fit' approach. PROSPERO record CRD42021286667.

RESULTS

A total of 12,039 papers were identified through the literature search and seven papers were included in the review, six in the context of breast cancer screening and one considering screening for ovarian cancer. Risk stratification was broadly considered acceptable, with the findings covering all five domains of the framework: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals, and process. Across these five domains, key areas that were identified as needing further consideration to support implementation were: a need for greater evidence, particularly for de-intensifying screening; resource limitations; need for staff training and clear communication; and the importance of public involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk stratification of population-based cancer screening programmes is largely acceptable to healthcare professionals, but support and training will be required to successfully facilitate implementation. Future research should focus on strengthening the evidence base for risk stratification, particularly in relation to reducing screening frequency among low-risk cohorts and the acceptability of this approach across different cancer types.

Clinician practices, knowledge, and attitudes regarding primary human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: A mixed-methods study in Indiana

Primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, in which a high-risk HPV test is administered without cytology, was first included in 2018 US cervical cancer screening guidelines. Subsequent guidelines endorsed primary HPV testing as the preferred method for cervical cancer screening following evidence of its clinical and economic benefits, although many sources still indicate it as an option along with cytology and HPV/Pap co-testing. Primary HPV testing could be key to improving the declining cervical cancer screening rates in the US; however its adoption has been slow as clinicians are hesitant to make the change. Indiana ranks in the top ten states for cervical cancer mortality, with marked race-ethnic disparities in cervical cancer screening and low HPV vaccination rates. To examine clinician practices, knowledge, and attitudes regarding primary HPV testing, in 2021 we conducted an online cross-sectional survey (n = 224) and in-depth interviews (n = 20) with Indiana clinicians practicing cervical cancer screening. Only 3 % reported using primary HPV testing for eligible patients, and only 50 % were willing to adopt it as the preferred cervical cancer screening method for the recommended patient group. In a multivariable logistic regression model, knowledge of the effectiveness (aOR 2.58 [1.41-4.72]) and perceived benefit (aOR 7.35 [3.65-14.81]) of primary HPV testing predicted willingness to adopt. In-depth interviews revealed knowledge gaps, uncertainty, and perceived limitations of this method as the reasons for limited uptake of primary HPV testing. Targeted messages about the benefits and effectiveness may enhance clinician knowledge, acceptance, and adoption.

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.

Development and validation of the cervical cancer knowledge scale and HPV testing knowledge scale in a sample of Canadian women

Knowledge of cervical cancer and HPV testing are important factors in proactive and continued engagement with screening and are critical considerations as countries move towards the implementation of HPV-based primary screening programs. However, existing scales measuring knowledge of both cervical cancer and HPV testing are not up to date with the current literature, lack advanced psychometric testing, or have suboptimal psychometric properties. Updated, validated scales are needed to ensure accurate measurement of these factors. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop and validate two scales measuring cervical cancer knowledge and HPV testing knowledge. A pool of items was generated by retaining relevant existing items identified in a 2019 literature search and developing new items according to themes identified in recent systematic reviews. Items were assessed for relevance by the research team and then refined through seven cognitive interviews with Canadian women. A web-based survey including the remaining items (fourteen for each scale development) was administered to a sample of Canadian women in October and November of 2021. After data cleaning, N = 1027 responses were retained. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis were conducted, and Item Response Theory was used to select items. The final cervical cancer knowledge scale (CCKS) and HPV testing knowledge scale (HTKS) were unidimensional, and each consisted of eight items. CFA demonstrated adequate model fit for both scales. The developed scales will be important tools to identify knowledge gaps and inform communications about cervical cancer screening, particularly in the context of HPV-based screening implementation.

Assessing Canadian women's preferences for cervical cancer screening: A brief report

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is recommended for primary screening for cervical cancer by several health authorities. Several countries that have implemented HPV testing programs have encountered resistance against extended screening intervals and older age of initiation. As Canada prepares to implement HPV testing programs, it is important to understand women's preferences toward cervical cancer screening to ensure a smooth transition. The objective of this study was to assess Canadian women's current preferences toward cervical cancer screening. Using a web-based survey, we recruited underscreened ( > 3 years since last Pap test) and adequately screened (< 3 years since last Pap test) Canadian women aged 21–70 who were biologically female and had a cervix. We used Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) methodology to collect data on women's preferences for different screening methods, screening intervals, and ages of initiation. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate preferences in both subgroups. In both subgroups, women preferred screening every three years compared to every five or ten years, and initiating screening at age 21 compared to age 25 or 30. Adequately screened women (n = 503) most preferred co-testing, while underscreened women (n = 524) preferred both co-testing and HPV self-sampling over Pap testing. Regardless of screening status, women preferred shorter screening intervals, an earlier age of initiation, and co-testing. Adequate communication from public health authorities is needed to explain the extended screening intervals and age of initiation to prevent resistance against these changes to cervical cancer screening.

Sauver JL, Jenkins GD, Fan C, Finney Rutten LJ. Awareness and Support of Clinician- and Patient-Collected Human Papillomavirus Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening Among Primary Care Clinicians

Background: Cervical cancer screening has shifted toward human papillomavirus (HPV)-based testing, but uptake of primary HPV screening in the United States is unknown and previous studies highlight delays in clinician adoption of guideline updates. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey of primary care clinicians (n = 252; response rate = 30.9%) assessing awareness and support of primary HPV screening. We assessed factors for association with past use of HPV testing and support of clinician- and patient-collected HPV testing individually using Fisher's exact test and jointly using Firth's logistic regression. Results: Most clinicians (79%) were familiar with one or more primary HPV screening guidelines. Support for clinician-collected (89%) and patient-collected (82%) HPV testing was high, but only 34.5% reported prior use. Guideline familiarity was positively associated with HPV testing in practice (p = 0.0001). Support of clinician-collected testing was positively associated with more years in practice (p = 0.03), internal (vs. family) medicine specialty (p = 0.03), and guideline familiarity (p ≤ 0.0001). Male clinicians more frequently supported patient collection for patients overdue for screening (p = 0.013). Physicians more frequently than advanced practice providers (APPs) supported patient collection for screening-adherent women (p = 0.021). Multivariable analysis showed those unfamiliar with guidelines were less likely to have used HPV testing [odds ratio, OR: 0.10 (0.03-0.32)] or to support clinician-collected HPV testing [OR: 0.16 (0.07-0.37)]. APPs were less likely than physicians to support patient-collected HPV testing among screening-adherent women [OR: 0.42 (0.20-0.87)]. Conclusions: We observed high levels of guideline awareness and clinician support for primary HPV testing, despite relatively low use. This merits further exploration to inform future interventions to increase uptake.

Testing positive for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) at primary HPV cervical screening: A qualitative exploration of women’s information needs and preferences for communication of results

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) primary cervical screening was implemented across England during 2019, where cervical cell samples are first tested for HPV and cytology is used to triage HPV-positive results. Around 8.5% of women who attend test HPV-positive with normal cytology (HPV+/normal). We aimed to explore women’s information needs and suggestions for improvements to result communication following an HPV+/normal result, among those with higher and lower levels of education. In‐depth interviews were conducted with 30 women aged 24–63 who had tested HPV+/normal at routine screening. Secondary qualitative data, not previously reported, were analysed using Framework Analysis to compare themes between those with education lower-than-degree-level vs. degree-level-or-higher (n = 15 in each group). Regardless of education level, women had unanswered questions about their result meaning and the HPV primary screening protocol. Expectations of cervical screening did not always match the service provided, especially regarding content of letters and mode of result delivery. Women with lower education were less clear about the meaning of normal cytology and its link to HPV; and had difficulty sourcing information after their result. Pragmatic suggestions were made for preferences in content, wording, format, and delivery of information in patient communications. Overall, our findings point to areas which can be used by policymakers and healthcare professionals to inform content and communication of results, as HPV primary screening continues to be implemented and refined worldwide. Future research should use these suggestions to develop patient materials and then test them to assess content engagement and information recall.

Implementing changes to cervical screening: A qualitative study with health professionals

BACKGROUND

Profound changes were made to the Australian National Cervical Screening Program in December 2017, which included a reduction in the frequency of screening and a new cervical screening test.

AIM

To explore the attitudes and experiences of health professionals practising in Australia since implementation of these changes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with general practitioners, obstetricians and gynaecologists, pathologists and nurses involved in cervical screening Australia-wide. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, health professionals had positive attitudes toward the changes but described many challenges associated with their implementation. Participants discussed practical system challenges, communication and education, finding ways around the guidelines and other perceived 'collateral'. Practical system challenges included increased colposcopy referrals, limited access to the National Cancer Screening Register, a complex primary screening approach, and issues with self-collection. In terms of communication and education, limited public education was recognised, in addition to challenges with particular age groups of women. Finding ways around the guidelines were described, for example over-referring women for co-testing by stating symptoms, which could lead to overtreatment. Other perceived collateral were demonstrated through reduced opportunistic screening opportunities due to less frequent primary care presentations, and concern over the potential for further underscreening in already under-screened populations.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide insight into the challenges health professionals face with renewing programs, in terms of practical issues and unexpected downstream effects which need to be addressed to ensure future implementation of the program is streamlined.