Search

Objectives: We tested the impact of different messages about the rationale for extended cervical screening intervals on acceptability of an extension.Methods: Women in England aged 25-49 years (n = 2931) were randomised to a control group or one of 5 groups given different messages about extending cervical screening intervals from 3 to 5 years. Outcome measures were general acceptability and six components from the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA).Results: The groups who saw additional messages (47-63%) were more likely to find the change acceptable than controls (43%). Messages about interval safety, test accuracy and speed of cell changes resulted in more positive affective-attitudes, higher ethicality beliefs, a better understanding of the reasons for extended intervals and greater belief in the safety of 5-year intervals. Being up-to-date with screening and previous abnormal results were associated with finding 5-yearly screening unacceptable.Conclusions: Emphasising the slow development of cell changes following an HPV negative result and the safety of longer intervals, alongside the accuracy of HPV primary screening is important.Practical Implications: Campaigns explaining the rationale for extended cervical screening intervals are likely to improve acceptability. Though women who feel at increased risk, may remain worried even when the rationale is explained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The NHS Cervical Screening Programme plans to increase the screening interval from 3 to 5 years for women aged 25–49 who test negative for human papillomavirus (HPV). This exploratory cross-sectional online survey tested the impact of different levels of information about the proposed change on acceptability of a longer interval. Methods: Women aged 18–45 (n = 585) were individually randomised to one of three information exposure groups differing in the level of information provided about the screening interval change: (1) basic information; (2) basic information with additional detail about timeline of HPV infection; (3) as (2) but with the addition of a diagram. Acceptability of the change (favourable and unfavourable attitudes) was assessed post-exposure alongside HPV timeline beliefs. We used ANOVA and regression analyses to test for between-group differences. Results: Women in Group 3 had higher scores on the favourable attitudes sub-scale compared with Group 1. Women in Groups 2 and 3 had more accurate timeline beliefs than those in Group 1. There were no between-group differences in unfavourable attitudes. After adjusting for demographic factors, a higher favourable attitudes score was independently predicted by being in Group 3 compared to Group 1, more accurate HPV timeline beliefs, and previous irregular or non-attendance at screening. Conclusions: Overall, acceptability of an increased screening interval was moderate, but providing women with information about the safety and rationale for this change may improve acceptability. In particular, communicating the long timeline from HPV exposure to cervical cancer may reassure women about the safety of the proposed changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]