A Large Population-Based Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Attendance at Screening for Cervical Cancer

Health care system and patient-related factors affecting low cancer screening participation in Poland

The level of participation in cancer screening is low in the Polish population. The aim of this study was to assess the opinions of centers providing cancer screening as to the reasons for the low frequency of cancer screening in Poland and possible methods to increase participation. In July 2020 433 centers in Poland carried out breast and/or cervical cancer screening. Of these, 136 centers decided to participate in the study. The study was conducted using an original questionnaire. The questions were addressed to opinion of centers about: reasons for the low frequency of cancer screening in Poland, methods to increase the frequency of cancer screening, pricing and motivating factors for providing cancer screening. Among opinions as to possible reasons for the low frequency of cancer screening in Poland related to the care-system, lack of encouragement from general practitioners, lack of invitations for cancer screening and lack of proper social advertising were most prevalent; whereas among reasons related to patients, a low awareness of cancer screening and fear of cancer diagnosis. The main methods that could potentially increase screening participation are considered to be the inclusion of cancer screening in mandatory periodic employee examinations, more activity by general practitioners, better promotion of screening by central institutions, and sending personal invitations. In conclude some interventions should be carried out to motivate people to break down barriers.

Socioeconomic, lifestyle and biological determinants of cervical screening coverage: Lolland-Falster Health Study, Denmark

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is preventable. Screening is important for early detection. However, even in high-income countries, coverage is sub-optimal. We identified socioeconomic, lifestyle and biological determinants of cervical screening coverage.

METHODS

In Denmark, women aged 23-64 are free of charge personally invited to screening. All cervical cell samples are registered centrally in the Patobank. We linked data from the Lolland-Falster Health Study (LOFUS) with Patobank data. LOFUS was a population-based health survey undertaken in 2016-2020. With logistic regression, coverage defined as ≥1 cervical sample registered within a 6-year period from 2015 to 2020 was compared across levels of risk factors expressed as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Among 13 406 women of screening aged 23-64 and invited to LOFUS, 72% had ≥1 cervical sample registered. Non-participation in LOFUS was a strong predictor of low coverage; aOR 0.32; 95% CI 0.31-0.36. Among LOFUS participants, education was a strong predictor of coverage in univariate analysis, OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.48-0.71, but this association disappeared in multi-variate analysis, aOR 0.86; 95% CI 0.66-1.10. In multi-variate analysis, predictors of low coverage were high age, living without a partner, retired, current smoker, poor self-rated health, elevated blood pressure and elevated glycated haemoglobin.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with low cervical screening coverage had limited contact to healthcare, exemplified by non-participation in LOFUS, and pertinent health and social problems, exemplified by elevated blood pressure and glycated haemoglobin, poor self-rated health, and retirement already in screening age. Structural changes in screening are needed to reach non-screened women.

Effect of HPV self-collection kits on cervical cancer screening uptake among under-screened women from low-income US backgrounds (MBMT-3): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Most cervical cancer in the USA occurs in under-screened women. The My Body, My Test-3 (MBMT-3) trial sought to assess the efficacy of mailed human papillomavirus (HPV) self-collection kits with appointment-scheduling assistance to increase uptake of cervical cancer screening among under-screened women from low-income backgrounds compared with scheduling assistance alone.

METHODS

MBMT-3 is a phase 3, open-label, two-arm, randomised controlled trial. Participants were recruited from 22 counties in North Carolina state, USA, and we partnered with 21 clinics across these counties. Participants were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 25-64 years, had an intact cervix, were uninsured or enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare, had an income of 250% or less of the US Federal Poverty Level, were living within the catchment area of a trial-associated clinic, and were overdue for screening (ie, Papanicolaou test ≥4 years ago or high-risk HPV test ≥6 years ago). Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive a mailed HPV self-collection kit and assistance for scheduling a free screening appointment (intervention group) or to receive scheduling assistance alone (control group). Randomisation was conducted by county using permuted blocks of nine patients and assignment to group was not masked. Participants in the intervention group were mailed HPV self-collection kits to collect a cervical-vaginal sample and return it by mail for testing. Samples were tested with the Aptima HPV assay (Hologic, San Diego, CA, USA), and participants were informed of high-risk HPV results by telephone call. Trial staff made up to three telephone call attempts to provide scheduling assistance for in-clinic screening for all participants. The primary outcome was cervical cancer screening uptake (ie, attending an in-clinic screening appointment or testing negative for high-risk HPV with a returned self-collected sample) within 6 months of enrolment in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02651883, and has been completed.

FINDINGS

Recruitment occurred between April 11, 2016, and Dec 16, 2019. 4256 women contacted the trial to participate, of whom 899 (21%) were eligible for inclusion and 697 (78%) returned consent forms. Of those who consented, 461 (66%) women were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 236 (34%) women were randomly assigned to the control group. We excluded 32 ineligible women post-randomisation, leaving 665 for primary analysis. Screening uptake was higher in the intervention group (317 [72%] of 438) than control group (85 [37%] of 227; risk ratio 1·93, 95% CI 1·62-2·31). Among intervention participants, 341 (78%) of 438 returned a self-collection kit. Three participants reported hurt or injury when using the self-collection kit; no participants withdrew due to adverse effects.

INTERPRETATION

Among under-screened women from low-income backgrounds, mailed HPV self-collection kits with scheduling assistance led to greater uptake of cervical cancer screening than scheduling assistance alone. At-home HPV self-collection testing has the potential to increase screening uptake among under-screened women.

FUNDING

National Cancer Institute.

Combined incentive actions, focusing on primary care professionals, to improve cervical cancer screening in women living in socioeconomically disadvantaged geographical areas: a study protocol of a hybrid cluster randomised effectiveness and implementation trial- RESISTE

INTRODUCTION

Cervical cancer (CC) causes thousands of deaths each year. Nearly 100% of cases are caused by oncogenic strains of human papillomavirus (HPV). In most industrialised countries, CC screening (CCS) is based on the detection of HPV infections. For many reasons including lower adherence to CCS, underserved women are more likely to develop CC, and die from it. We aim to demonstrate that the use of incentives could improve screening rates among this population.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Our cluster randomised, controlled trial will include 10 000 women aged 30-65 years eligible for CCS, living in deprived areas in four French departments, two mainlands and two overseas, and who did not perform physician-based HPV testing within the framework of the nationally organised screening programme. HPV self-sampling kit (HPVss) will be mailed to them. Two interventions are combined in a factorial analysis design ending in four arms: the possibility to receive or not a financial incentive of €20 and to send back the self-sampling by mail or to give it to a health professional, family doctor, gynaecologist, midwife or pharmacist. The main outcome is the proportion of women returning the HPVss, or doing a physician-based HPV or pap-smear test the year after receiving the HPVss. 12-month follow-up data will be collected through the French National Health Insurance database. We expect to increase the return rate of HPV self-samples by at least 10% (from 20% to 30%) compared with the postal return without economic incentive.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was first obtained on 2 April 2020, then on July 29 2022. The ethics committee classified the study as interventional with low risk, thus no formal consent is required for inclusion. The use of health insurance data was approved by the Commission Nationale Informatique et Libertés on 14 September 2021 (ref No 920276). An independent data security and monitoring committee was established. The main trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04312178.

Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane review published in Issue 5, 2011. Worldwide, cervical cancer is the fourth commonest cancer affecting women. High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is causative in 99.7% of cases. Other risk factors include smoking, multiple sexual partners, the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases and immunosuppression. Primary prevention strategies for cervical cancer focus on reducing HPV infection via vaccination and data suggest that this has the potential to prevent nearly 90% of cases in those vaccinated prior to HPV exposure. However, not all countries can afford vaccination programmes and, worryingly, uptake in many countries has been extremely poor. Secondary prevention, through screening programmes, will remain critical to reducing cervical cancer, especially in unvaccinated women or those vaccinated later in adolescence. This includes screening for the detection of pre-cancerous cells, as well as high-risk HPV. In the UK, since the introduction of the Cervical Screening Programme in 1988, the associated mortality rate from cervical cancer has fallen. However, worldwide, there is great variation between countries in both coverage and uptake of screening. In some countries, national screening programmes are available whereas in others, screening is provided on an opportunistic basis. Additionally, there are differences within countries in uptake dependent on ethnic origin, age, education and socioeconomic status. Thus, understanding and incorporating these factors in screening programmes can increase the uptake of screening. This, together with vaccination, can lead to cervical cancer becoming a rare disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at women, to increase the uptake, including informed uptake, of cervical screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 6, 2020. MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS databases up to June 2020. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase uptake/informed uptake of cervical screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, the data were synthesised in a meta-analysis using standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

Comprehensive literature searches identified 2597 records; of these, 70 met our inclusion criteria, of which 69 trials (257,899 participants) were entered into a meta-analysis. The studies assessed the effectiveness of invitational and educational interventions, lay health worker involvement, counselling and risk factor assessment. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity between trials limited statistical pooling of data. Overall, there was moderate-certainty evidence to suggest that invitations appear to be an effective method of increasing uptake compared to control (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.96; 141,391 participants; 24 studies). Additional analyses, ranging from low to moderate-certainty evidence, suggested that invitations that were personalised, i.e. personal invitation, GP invitation letter or letter with a fixed appointment, appeared to be more successful. More specifically, there was very low-certainty evidence to support the use of GP invitation letters as compared to other authority sources' invitation letters within two RCTs, one RCT assessing 86 participants (RR 1.69 95% CI 0.75 to 3.82) and another, showing a modest benefit, included over 4000 participants (RR 1.13, 95 % CI 1.05 to 1.21). Low-certainty evidence favoured personalised invitations (telephone call, face-to-face or targeted letters) as compared to standard invitation letters (RR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.11 to 1.21; 27,663 participants; 5 studies). There was moderate-certainty evidence to support a letter with a fixed appointment to attend, as compared to a letter with an open invitation to make an appointment (RR 1.61, 95 % CI 1.48 to 1.75; 5742 participants; 5 studies). Low-certainty evidence supported the use of educational materials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.54; 63,415 participants; 13 studies) and lay health worker involvement (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.65; 4330 participants; 11 studies). Other less widely reported interventions included counselling, risk factor assessment, access to a health promotion nurse, photo comic book, intensive recruitment and message framing. It was difficult to deduce any meaningful conclusions from these interventions due to sparse data and low-certainty evidence. However, having access to a health promotion nurse and attempts at intensive recruitment may have increased uptake. One trial reported an economic outcome and randomised 3124 participants within a national screening programme to either receive the standard screening invitation, which would incur a fee, or an invitation offering screening free of charge. No difference in the uptake at 90 days was found (574/1562 intervention versus 612/1562 control, (RR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.03). The use of HPV self-testing as an alternative to conventional screening may also be effective at increasing uptake and this will be covered in a subsequent review. Secondary outcomes, including cost data, were incompletely documented. The majority of cluster-RCTs did not account for clustering or adequately report the number of clusters in the trial in order to estimate the design effect, so we did not selectively adjust the trials. It is unlikely that reporting of these trials would impact the overall conclusions and robustness of the results. Of the meta-analyses that could be performed, there was considerable statistical heterogeneity, and this should be borne in mind when interpreting these findings. Given this and the low to moderate evidence, further research may change these findings. The risk of bias in the majority of trials was unclear, and a number of trials suffered from methodological problems and inadequate reporting. We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of an unclear or high risk of bias with regards to allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data and other biases.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence to support the use of invitation letters to increase the uptake of cervical screening. Low-certainty evidence showed lay health worker involvement amongst ethnic minority populations may increase screening coverage, and there was also support for educational interventions, but it is unclear what format is most effective. The majority of the studies were from developed countries and so the relevance of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), is unclear. Overall, the low-certainty evidence that was identified makes it difficult to infer as to which interventions were best, with exception of invitational interventions, where there appeared to be more reliable evidence.

Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Poor retention of participants in randomised trials can lead to missing outcome data which can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability, validity and reliability of results. Many strategies are used to improve retention but few have been formally evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the effect of strategies to improve retention of participants in randomised trials and to investigate if the effect varied by trial setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection (SCI-expanded, SSCI, CPSI-S, CPCI-SSH and ESCI) either directly with a specified search strategy or indirectly through the ORRCA database. We also searched the SWAT repository to identify ongoing or recently completed retention trials. We did our most recent searches in January 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included eligible randomised or quasi-randomised trials of evaluations of strategies to increase retention that were embedded in 'host' randomised trials from all disease areas and healthcare settings. We excluded studies aiming to increase treatment compliance.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on: the retention strategy being evaluated; location of study; host trial setting; method of randomisation; numbers and proportions in each intervention and comparator group. We used a risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to estimate the effectiveness of the strategies to improve retention. We assessed heterogeneity between trials. We applied GRADE to determine the certainty of the evidence within each comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 70 eligible papers that reported data from 81 retention trials. We included 69 studies with more than 100,000 participants in the final meta-analyses, of which 67 studies evaluated interventions aimed at trial participants and two evaluated interventions aimed at trial staff involved in retention. All studies were in health care and most aimed to improve postal questionnaire response. Interventions were categorised into broad comparison groups: Data collection; Participants; Sites and site staff; Central study management; and Study design. These intervention groups consisted of 52 comparisons, none of which were supported by high-certainty evidence as determined by GRADE assessment. There were four comparisons presenting moderate-certainty evidence, three supporting retention (self-sampling kits, monetary reward together with reminder or prenotification and giving a pen at recruitment) and one reducing retention (inclusion of a diary with usual follow-up compared to usual follow-up alone). Of the remaining studies, 20 presented GRADE low-certainty evidence and 28 presented very low-certainty evidence. Our findings do provide a priority list for future replication studies, especially with regard to comparisons that currently rely on a single study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most of the interventions we identified aimed to improve retention in the form of postal questionnaire response. There were few evaluations of ways to improve participants returning to trial sites for trial follow-up. None of the comparisons are supported by high-certainty evidence. Comparisons in the review where the evidence certainty could be improved with the addition of well-done studies should be the focus for future evaluations.

Cervical cancer screening invitations in low and middle income countries: Evidence from Armenia

Roughly 90 percent of cervical cancer deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where the lack of adequate infrastructures hampers screening, while informational, cultural, and socio-economic barriers limit participation in the few programs that do exist. We conducted a field experiment with the Armenian cervical cancer screening program to determine whether, despite these barriers, the simple, economical invitation strategies adopted in high-income countries could enhance screening take-up in LMICs. We find that letters of invitation increase screening take-up, especially when there are follow-up reminders. Different ways of framing messages appear to have no impact. Finally, women in rural areas are more likely to respond to invitation by letter, helping to narrow the urban-rural screening gap.

Organised Versus Opportunistic Cervical Cancer Screening in Urban and Rural Regions of Lithuania

Background and Objectives: In 2004, Lithuania started the Nationwide Cervical Cancer Screening Programme. However, screening is more opportunistic than population-wide and the programme’s coverage is insufficient. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of systematic personal invitation on coverage of cervical cancer (CC) screening in urban and rural regions of Lithuania. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in an urban primary healthcare centre (PHCC) and in a rural PHCC, where prevailing CC screening practice was highly opportunistic. Over the first year, all women aged 25–60 who had not received a Pap smear test within the last three years in urban (n = 1591) and rural (n = 1843) PHCCs received a personal invitation letter to participate in the screening. Over the second year, the reminder letter was sent to the non-attendees (n = 1042 in urban and n = 929 in rural PHCCs). A random sample of women (n = 93), who did not attend for screening after two letters, was contacted by phone in order to identify the barriers of non-attendance. Results: Before the study, only 9.6% of the target population in urban and 14.7% in rural PHCCs participated in CC screening. After the first invitation letter, the participation in CC screening increased up to 24.6% in urban and 30.8% in rural areas (p < 0.001). After the reminder letter, the attendance was 16.4% in urban and 22.2% in rural PHCCs (p < 0.001). The most common barriers for the non-attendance were lack of time, long waiting time for family doctor’s appointment, worries that a Pap test might be unpleasant and preventive gynaecological examination outside of the screening program. Conclusions: A systematic personal invitation with one reminder letter significantly increased the coverage of CC screening and was more effective in rural regions than in urban regions. The assessed barriers for non-attendance can be used to improve the coverage of screening.

Cervical cancer case-control audit: Results from routine evaluation of a nationwide cervical screening program

Our study used a refined case–control cervical cancer Audit framework to investigate effectiveness of cervical screening, with measures of three screening failures: irregular‐participation, cervical cancer developed after cytological abnormalities and after normal screening results. The register‐based study included 4,254 cervical cancer cases diagnosed in Sweden during 2002–2011, and 30 population‐based controls per case. We used conditional logistic regression models to examine relative risks of cervical cancer in relation to screening participation and screening results in the past two screening rounds from 6 months before cancer diagnosis. We found that women unscreened in past two screening rounds showed four times increased risk of cervical cancer compared to women screened in time (OR = 4.1, 95% CI = 3.8–4.5), and women unscreened in the previous round but screened in the most recent round also showed a statistically significantly elevated risk (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.5–1.8). Women having abnormality in previous two rounds exhibited higher risk of cervical cancer compared to women screened with normal results, while having normal results in the subsequent round after the abnormality also yielded an increased risk (OR = 4.0, 95% CI = 3.2–5.1). Being screened with only normal results was associated with 89% risk reduction for squamous cell cancer, compared to women unscreened, but only 60% reduction for adenocarcinoma. Our findings emphasize the importance of routine participation in cervical screening and suggest that management of abnormalities, as well as sensitivity of the test, warrants improvement especially for preventing cervical adenocarcinoma. The Audit framework serves as routine evaluation model and the findings benchmark for future evaluation of changes in screening practice.

What's new?

Systematic review of cancer screening is critical to ensuring high‐quality, effective disease prevention and detection and management. In this study, case–control audit was used to evaluate cervical cancer screening in Sweden. Analyses show that relative to women who undergo routine screening, cervical cancer risk is elevated for women who are screened at irregular intervals. Risk was significantly increased among women with abnormalities detected at screening. The audit further revealed that, overall, management of abnormalities for preventing cervical adenocarcinoma is inferior compared to squamous cell cancer. The findings suggest that case–control auditing is a useful means of evaluating cervical screening programs.

A 3-step intervention to improve adherence to cervical cancer screening: The SCAN randomized controlled trial

The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a stepwise intervention with an increasing level of complexity and cost to increase adherence to organized cervical cancer screening. This was a randomized (1: 1) controlled trial, conducted among 13 Portuguese primary health care units. Participants (n = 1220) were women aged 25-49 years, eligible for cervical cancer screening, with a mobile phone number available. The tested intervention was a 3-step invitation to screening, based on automated text messages/phone calls (step 1), manual phone calls (step 2) and face-to-face interviews (step 3), applied sequentially to non-adherent women after each step. Participants in the control group were invited through a written letter (standard of care). The primary outcome was the proportion of women screened, which was assessed after step 1 (45 days after the initial invitation), steps 1 + 2 (90 days after the initial invitation) and steps 1 + 2 + 3 (150 days after the initial invitation). Adherence to cervical cancer screening was significantly higher among women assigned to the intervention than those in the control group for step 1 (39.9% vs. 25.7%, p < 0.001), steps 1 + 2 (48.6% vs. 30.7%, p < 0.001) and steps 1 + 2 + 3 (51.2% vs. 34.0%, p < 0.001). In conclusion, adherence to cervical cancer screening was higher by 17% among women invited through the 3-step intervention, compared to those receiving the standard invitation letter. The former strategy has the potential to be broadly implemented due to the low requirements of technology and training. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03122275.

Participation in cervical cancer screening among immigrants and Danish-born women in Denmark

In this nationwide register-based cohort study, we examined cervical cancer screening participation among immigrants in Denmark by country and region of origin. Furthermore, we assessed whether differences in screening participation between immigrants and Danish-born women were explained by sociodemographic or health-related characteristics, and examined predictors of participation among immigrants. Using high-quality registries, we identified women invited for cervical cancer screening during 2008-2009 and retrieved individual-level data on sociodemographic-, health- and immigration-related characteristics. A total of 610,907 women were followed for up to 2.9 years after screening invitation. We estimated the probability of participation using the Aalen-Johansen estimator and the hazard ratios (HRs) of participation using Cox regression. The probability of participation within follow-up was 74.5% (95% CI, 74.4%-74.6%) in Danish-born women; 61.2% (95% CI, 60.4%-62.1%) in Western immigrants; and 61.3% (95% CI, 60.9%-61.8%) in non-Western immigrants. Participation in immigrants varied by region of origin from 44.3% (95% CI, 41.4%-47.4%) in immigrants from North America, New Zealand and Australia to 67.8% (95% CI, 65.4%-70.3%) in immigrants from South- and Central America. Substantial variation was seen between specific countries of origin. Differences in participation between immigrants and Danish-born women were not explained by sociodemographic or health-related characteristics. Predictors of low participation in immigrants included lower income, unemployment, being unmarried, having a history of schizophrenia or other psychoses, and ≤5 years' stay in Denmark. In conclusion, cervical cancer screening participation in immigrants varied by region and country of origin, but all immigrant groups had lower participation than Danish-born women.

Invitation strategies and coverage in the population-based cancer screening programmes in the European Union

The aim of this study was to describe the compliance of the population-based cancer screening programmes in the European Union Member States to the invitation strategies enumerated in the European Guidelines and the impact of such strategies on the invitational coverage. Experts in screening programme monitoring from the respective countries provided data. Coverage by invitation was calculated as the proportion of individuals in the target age range receiving a screening invitation over the total number of annualized eligible population. The invitation strategies of 30 breasts, 25 cervical and 27 colorectal national or regional population-based screening programmes are described. Individual mail invitations are sent by 28 breasts, 20 cervical and 25 colorectal screening programmes. Faecal occult blood test kits are sent by post in 17 of the colorectal cancer screening programmes. The majority of programmes claimed to have a population registry, although some use health insurance data as the database for sending invitations. At least 95% invitation coverage was reached by 16 breast, six cervical and five colorectal screening programmes. Majority of the programmes comply with the invitation strategies enumerated in the European guidelines, although there is still scope for improvements. Coverage by invitation is below the desirable level in many population-based cancer screening programmes in European Union.

Stepwise strategy to improve cervical cancer screening adherence (SCAN-Cervical Cancer) - Automated text messages, phone calls and reminders: Population based randomized controlled trial

The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of invitation to cervical cancer screening through a very low-cost strategy based on automated and customized text messages, phone calls and reminders. A randomized (1:1) controlled trial was conducted among 13 Portuguese primary care units, recruiting women aged 25 to 49 years, eligible for cervical cancer screening, with an available mobile phone number. In the intervention group, participants were invited for cervical cancer screening through automated/customized text messages and phone calls, followed by text message reminders. Participants in the control group were invited through a written letter (standard of care). The primary outcome was the proportion of women adherent to screening up to 45 days after invitation and the secondary outcome was defined as the adherence proportion after invitation based only on text messages and reminders. A total of 1220 women were randomized, 605 to intervention and 615 to control group. The adherence to cervical cancer was significantly higher among women assigned to intervention (39.0% vs. 25.7%, p < 0.001); this corresponds to a difference of 13.3% (95% CI 8.1 to 18.5). The difference in adherence between an invitation strategy based only on text messages and reminders and the standard of care was -0.4%, 95% CI -5.3 to 4.5. In conclusion, an invitation to cervical cancer screening using automated text messages/phone calls and reminders increases the adherence to cervical cancer screening. Such a low-cost and operator-independent strategy of invitation may contribute to the sustainability of organized screening programs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03122275.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Cervical Cancer Education Intervention for Latinas Delivered Through Interactive, Multimedia Kiosks

US Latina women experience disproportionately high cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates. These health disparities are largely preventable with routine pap tests and human papillomavirus (HPV) screening. This study tested the efficacy of a cervical cancer education intervention to improve risk factor knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and self-reported behavior related to cervical cancer screening among low-income Latinas who had not been screened in the past 2 years, compared to a usual care control group. Low-income Latinas who had not had a pap test in the prior 2 years were recruited from three Federally Qualified Health Centers and randomly assigned to intervention and control groups, with in-person assessment at baseline and 6-month follow-up. Women in the intervention group received a one-time low-literacy cervical cancer education program through an interactive, multimedia kiosk in either English or Spanish based on their language preference. Compared to the control group, the intervention group demonstrated greater knowledge (p < 0.0001) and more favorable attitudes at follow-up; fewer intervention group women never thought of getting a pap test (46 vs. 54 %, p = 0.050) or agreed that it is fate whether a woman gets cervical cancer or not (24 vs. 31 %, p = 0.043). The groups did not differ significantly on the proportion who had obtained or made an appointment for a pap test at follow-up (51 vs. 48 %, p = 0.35). Both groups reported high levels of self-efficacy regarding pap screening at post-intervention. A one-time interactive, multimedia educational intervention improved cervical cancer knowledge and attitudes among low-income Latinas but had no effect on cervical cancer-screening behavior. Exposure of the control group to the pre-test conducted on the multimedia kiosk may have influenced their screening behavior.

Socio-economic and demographic determinants affecting participation in the Swedish cervical screening program: A population-based case-control study

Background

Cervical screening programs are highly protective for cervical cancer, but only for women attending screening procedure.

Objective

Identify socio-economic and demographic determinants for non-attendance in cervical screening.

Methods

Design: Population-based case-control study.

Setting: Sweden.

Population: Source population was all women eligible for screening. Based on complete screening records, two groups of women aged 30–60 were compared. The case group, non-attending women, (N = 314,302) had no smear registered for 6–8 years. The control group (N = 266,706) attended within 90 days of invitation.

Main outcome measures: Risk of non-attendance by 9 groups of socioeconomic and demographic variables.

Analysis: Unadjusted odds ratios (OR) and OR after adjustment for all variables in logistic regression models were calculated.

Results

Women with low disposable family income (adjOR 2.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.01–2.11), with low education (adjOR 1.77; CI 1.73–1.81) and not cohabiting (adjOR 1.47; CI 1.45–1.50) were more likely to not attend cervical screening. Other important factors for non-attendance were being outside the labour force and receiving welfare benefits. Swedish counties are responsible for running screening programs; adjusted OR for non-participation in counties ranged from OR 4.21 (CI 4.06–4.35) to OR 0.54 (CI 0.52–0.57), compared to the reference county. Being born outside Sweden was a risk factor for non-attendance in the unadjusted analysis but this disappeared in certain large groups after adjustment for socioeconomic factors.

Conclusion

County of residence and socio-economic factors were strongly associated with lower attendance in cervical screening, while being born in another country was of less importance. This indicates considerable potential for improvement of cervical screening attendance in several areas if best practice of routines is adopted.

Effect of cervical cancer education and provider recommendation for screening on screening rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Although cervical cancer is largely preventable through screening, detection and treatment of precancerous abnormalities, it remains one of the top causes of cancer-related morbidity and mortality globally.

Objectives

The objective of this systematic review is to understand the evidence of the effect of cervical cancer education compared to control conditions on cervical cancer screening rates in eligible women population at risk of cervical cancer. We also sought to understand the effect of provider recommendations for screening to eligible women on cervical cancer screening (CCS) rates compared to control conditions in eligible women population at risk of cervical cancer.

Methods

We used the PICO (Problem or Population, Interventions, Comparison and Outcome) framework as described in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook to develop our search strategy. The details of our search strategy has been described in our systematic review protocol published in the International Prospective Register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). The protocol registration number is CRD42016045605 available at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.asp?src=trip&ID=CRD42016045605. The search string was used in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Cochrane CENTRAL register of controlled trials to retrieve study reports that were screened for inclusion in this review. Our data synthesis and reporting was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). We did a qualitative synthesis of evidence and, where appropriate, individual study effects were pooled in meta-analyses using RevMan 5.3 Review Manager. The Higgins I² was used to assess for heterogeneity in studies pooled together for overall summary effects. We did assessment of risk of bias of individual studies included and assessed risk of publication bias across studies pooled together in meta-analysis by Funnel plot.

Results

Out of 3072 study reports screened, 28 articles were found to be eligible for inclusion in qualitative synthesis (5 of which were included in meta-analysis of educational interventions and 8 combined in meta-analysis of HPV self-sampling interventions), while 45 were excluded for various reasons. The use of theory-based educational interventions significantly increased CCS rates by more than double (OR, 2.46, 95% CI: 1.88, 3.21). Additionally, offering women the option of self-sampling for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing increased CCS rates by nearly 2-fold (OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.32, 2.22). We also found that invitation letters alone (or with a follow up phone contact), making an appointment, and sending reminders to patients who are due or overdue for screening had a significant effect on improving participation and CCS rates in populations at risk.

Conclusion

Our findings supports the implementation of theory-based cervical cancer educational interventions to increase women’s participation in cervical cancer screening programs, particularly when targeting communities with low literacy levels. Additionally, cervical cancer screening programs should consider the option of offering women the opportunity for self-sample collection particularly when such women have not responded to previous screening invitation or reminder letters for Pap smear collection as a method of screening.

Evaluation of the effect of an audit and feedback reporting tool on screening participation: The Primary Care Screening Activity Report (PCSAR)

Participation in cancer screening is critical to its effectiveness in reducing the burden of cancer. The Primary Care Screening Activity Report (PCSAR), an electronic report, was developed as an innovative audit and feedback tool to increase screening participation in Ontario's cancer screening programs. This study aims to assess its impact on patient screening participation. This study used a retrospective cohort design to evaluate the effectiveness of the 2014 PCSAR on screening participation in Ontario's three screening programs (breast, cervix and colorectal). The 3 cohorts comprised all participants eligible for each of the programs enrolled with a primary care physician in Ontario. Two exposures were evaluated for each cohort: enrollment with a physician who was registered to receive the PCSAR and enrollment with a registered physician who also logged into the PCSAR. Logistic regression modelling was used to assess the magnitude of the effect of PCSAR on participation, adjusting for participant and physician characteristics. Across all three screening programs, 63% of eligible physicians registered to receive the PCSAR and 38% of those registered logged-in to view it. Patients of physicians who registered were significantly more likely to participate in screening, with odds ratios ranging from 1.06 [1.04;1.09] to 1.15 [1.12;1.19]. The adjusted odds ratios associated with PCSAR log-in were 1.07 [1.03;1.12] to 1.18 [1.14;1.22] across all screening programs. Implementation of the PCSAR was associated with a small increase in screening participation. The PCSAR appears to be modestly effective in assisting primary care physicians in optimizing cancer screening participation among their patients.

Rapid review of evaluation of interventions to improve participation in cancer screening services

Objective

Screening participation is spread differently across populations, according to factors such as ethnicity or socioeconomic status. We here review the current evidence on effects of interventions to improve cancer screening participation, focussing in particular on effects in underserved populations.

Methods

We selected studies to review based on their characteristics: focussing on population screening programmes, showing a quantitative estimate of the effect of the intervention, and published since 1990. To determine eligibility for our purposes, we first reviewed titles, then abstracts, and finally the full paper. We started with a narrow search and expanded this until the search yielded eligible papers on title review which were less than 1% of the total. We classified the eligible studies by intervention type and by the cancer for which they screened, while looking to identify effects in any inequality dimension.

Results

The 68 papers included in our review reported on 71 intervention studies. Of the interventions, 58 had significant positive effects on increasing participation, with increase rates of the order of 2%–20% (in absolute terms).

Conclusions

Across different countries and health systems, a number of interventions were found more consistently to improve participation in cancer screening, including in underserved populations: pre-screening reminders, general practitioner endorsement, more personalized reminders for non-participants, and more acceptable screening tests in bowel and cervical screening.

Impact of invitation and reminder letters on cervical cancer screening participation rates in an organized screening program

Study's Objective was to explore the impact of invitation and reminder letters on cervical cancer screening participation among eligible Ontario women 30 to 69years of age. A cross-sectional study was used to describe factors and screening patterns for 1,150,783 eligible women. A cohort design was used to compare the impact of invitation and reminder letters on Pap uptake comparing women who received the intervention (n=99,278) with a historical non-intervention group (n=130,181). Factors that might influence screening participation were included as covariates in a multivariable logistic regression models. Overall, 26.7% of women who had a Pap test 3 to 5years prior and 9.8% of women with no Pap test in the previous 5years were screened within 9months after the intervention. On cohort analysis, 14.1% of women in the intervention group and 8.5% of women in the non-intervention group were screened within 9months. Being mailed an invitation letter was associated with greater likelihood of screening (OR=1.8, CI 1.7-1.8). Controlling for covariates, the letter intervention was associated with 9month screening for both women with a Pap test 3 to 5years prior (AOR=1.7, CI 1.6-1.8) and those with no Pap test in the previous 5years (AOR=1.8, CI 1.7-1.9). There was a significant effect of all covariates on the participation. The invitation and reminder letter strategy increased cervical cancer screening participation. Additional strategies that could encourage eligible women to participate and/or removing barriers to screening for eligible women may be necessary.

Invitation to cervical cancer screening does increase participation in Germany: Results from the MARZY study

The effect of different invitation models on participation in cervical cancer screening (CCS) was investigated in a randomized population-based cohort study in Germany. Participants were randomly selected via population registries and randomized into intervention Arm A (invitation letter) and Arm B (invitation letter and information brochure) or control Arm C (no invitation). The intervention and control arms were compared with regard to 3-year participation and the two invitation models were compared between intervention arms. Of the 7,758 eligible women aged 30-65 years, living in the city of Mainz and in the rural region of Mainz-Bingen, 5,265 were included in the analysis. Differences in proportions of women attending CCS were investigated and logistic regression was performed to analyze various factors influencing participation. In the intervention group, 91.8% participated in CCS compared to 85.3% in the control group (p < 0.0001), with a 6.6 percentage point increase in participation [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.6-8.6] and an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 2.69 (95% CI 2.15-3.37). Effect estimators increased to 21.9 percentage points (95% CI 16.7-27.1) and an OR of 3.64 (95% CI 2.74-4.82), respectively, when women who participated in screening annually were excluded from the analysis. The invitation letter was particularly effective among women with lower school education, migrant women and older women. No difference in participation was found between the intervention Arm A and Arm B. An accompanying information brochure did not motivate more women to undergo CCS. However, a written invitation statistically significantly increased participation in CCS in Germany.

Effect of Fee on Cervical Cancer Screening Attendance--ScreenFee, a Swedish Population-Based Randomised Trial

BACKGROUND

Attendance in the cervical cancer screening programme is one of the most important factors to lower the risk of contracting the disease. Attendance rates are often low in areas with low socioeconomic status. Charging a fee for screening might possibly decrease attendance in this population. Screening programme coverage is low in low socio-economic status areas in Gothenburg, Sweden, but has increased slightly after multiple interventions in recent years. For many years, women in the region have paid a fee for screening. We studied the effect of abolishing this fee in a trial emanating from the regular cervical cancer screening programme.

METHOD

Individually randomised controlled trial. All 3 124 women in three low-resource areas in Gothenburg, due for screening during the study period, were randomised to receive an offer of a free test or the standard invitation stating the regular fee of 100 SEK (≈11 €). The study was conducted during the first six months of 2013. Attendance was defined as a registered Pap smear within 90 days from the date the invitation was sent out.

RESULTS

Attendance did not differ significantly between women who were charged and those offered free screening (RR 0.93; CI 0.85-1.02). No differences were found within the districts or as an effect of age, attendance after the most recent previous invitation or previous experience of smear taking.

CONCLUSION

Abolishment of a modest screening fee in socially disadvantaged urban districts with low coverage, after previous multiple systematic interventions, does not increase attendance in the short term. Other interventions might be more important for increasing attendance in low socio-economic status areas.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02378324.

Self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: comparison of a brush-based and a lavage-based cervicovaginal self-sampling device

BACKGROUND

High coverage and attendance is essential for cervical cancer screening success. We investigated whether the previous positive experiences on increasing screening attendance by self-sampling in Finland are sampler device dependent.

METHODS

All women identified to cervical cancer screening in 2013 in 28 Finnish municipalities were randomised to receive a lavage- (n = 6030) or a brush type of self-sampling device (n = 6045) in case of non-attendance after two invitation letters. Seven hundred seventy non-attending women in the lavage device group and 734 in the brush group received the self-sampling offer. Women's experiences were enquired with an enclosed questionnaire.

RESULTS

Total attendance in the lavage group increased from 71.0 to 77.7% by reminder letters and further to 80.5% by self-sampling. Respective increase in the brush group was from 72.2 to 78.6% and then to 81.5%. The participation by self-sampling was 21.7% (95% CI 18.8-24.6) in the lavage group and 23.8% (95% CI 20.8-26.9) in the brush group. Women's self-sampling experiences were mainly positive and the sampler devices were equally well accepted by the women.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that the lavage device and brush device perform similarly in terms of uptake by non-attending women and user comfort. If self-sampling is integrated to the routine screening program in Finland, either of the devices can be chosen without the fear of losing participants due to a less acceptable device.

Applying the Transtheoretical Model to evaluate the effect of a call-recall program in enhancing Pap smear practice: a cluster randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of a call-recall approach in enhancing Pap smear practice by changes of motivation stage among non-compliant women.

METHODS

A cluster randomized controlled trial with parallel and un-blinded design was conducted between January and November 2010 in 40 public secondary schools in Malaysia among 403 female teachers who never or infrequently attended for a Pap test. A cluster randomization was applied in assigning schools to both groups. An intervention group received an invitation and reminder (call-recall program) for a Pap test (20 schools with 201 participants), while the control group received usual care from the existing cervical screening program (20 schools with 202 participants). Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the effect of the intervention program on the action stage (Pap smear uptake) at 24 weeks.

RESULTS

In both groups, pre-contemplation stage was found as the highest proportion of changes in stages. At 24 weeks, an intervention group showed two times more in the action stage than control group (adjusted odds ratio 2.44, 95% CI 1.29-4.62).

CONCLUSION

The positive effect of a call-recall approach in motivating women to change the behavior of screening practice should be appreciated by policy makers and health care providers in developing countries as an intervention to enhance Pap smear uptake.