Search

Objectives: Cervical screening uptake in England is falling. Infographics could strengthen intention to attend, increase positive attitudes and improve knowledge. Age targeting could improve these outcomes further. We tested the impact of generic and age‐targeted infographics. Design: A randomized controlled trial using an age‐stratified, parallel‐group design. Methods: Women aged 25–64 (n = 2095) were recruited through an online panel and randomized to see one of the three infographics. We tested: (i) impact of a generic cervical screening infographic compared to a control infographic on an unrelated topic with all screening age women and (ii) impact of an age‐targeted infographic compared to a generic cervical screening infographic with older women (50–64 years). Intentions, knowledge and attitudes were measured. Results: Women aged 25–64 years who viewed the generic infographic had significantly higher intentions [F(1, 1513) = 6.14, p =.013, ηp2 =.004], more accurate beliefs about the timeline of cervical cancer development (OR: 5.18, 95% CI: 3.86–6.95), more accurate social norms (OR: 3.03, 95% CI: 2.38–3.87) and more positive beliefs about screening benefits (OR: 2.23, 95% CI: 1.52–3.28) than those viewing the control infographic. In the older age group, there was no significant difference in intention between those viewing the generic versus age‐targeted versions [F(1, 607) =.03, p =.853, ηp2 <.001], but the age‐targeted version was more engaging [F(1, 608) = 9.41, p =.002, ηp2 =.015]. Conclusions: A cervical screening infographic can result in more positive attitudes and better knowledge and may have a small impact on intentions. Although age targeting did not affect intention, it had a positive impact on engagement and may therefore be useful in encouraging women to read and process materials. [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]

Over 20% of women aged 50-64 in Britain have not attended cervical screening within the recommended 5-year interval. The aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of five messages, informed using strategies from the Behaviour Change Wheel, on strength of intention to attend cervical screening in women aged 50-64 with weak positive intentions to be screened when next invited. Women were randomised (2:2:1), into one of two intervention groups or a control group. The control group saw basic information about cervical screening. Intervention group 1 saw a social norms message and an outcome expectancy message. Intervention group 2 saw a risk reduction message and a response efficacy message. There was further randomisation within the two intervention groups (1:1) to test the effectiveness of message framing and age-targeted information. Lastly, both intervention groups were randomised (1:1) to see a message acknowledging the possible discomfort associated with screening and offering support, or the support message only. Data were included from 475 women, collected using an online survey in March 2022. Adjusting for baseline intention, social norms (p = .84), outcome expectancy (p = .51), risk reduction (p = .19), response efficacy (p = .23) and discomfort acknowledgement messages (p = .71) had no effect on intention strength. However, there was a significant increase in intention after reading multiple messages. These results suggest that although no single message has a significant impact on intentions, when combined, they may act together to increase intention strength. Further research will understand the impact of these messages when combined in information materials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]