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]

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]

Objectives: Low uptake of cervical screening in women in their 50s and 60s leaves them at elevated risk of cancer in older age. An age‐targeted intervention could be an effective way to motivate older women to attend cervical screening. Our primary objective was to test the impact of different candidate messages on cervical screening intention strength. Design: A cross‐sectional online survey with randomized exposure to different candidate messages. Methods: Women aged 50–64 years who were not intending to be screened when next invited were recruited through an online panel. Those meeting the inclusion criteria (n = 825) were randomized to one of three groups: (1) control group, (2) intervention group 1, (3) intervention group 2. Each intervention group saw three candidate messages. These included a descriptive social norms message, a diagram illustrating the likelihood of each possible screening outcome, a response efficacy message, a risk reduction message and an acknowledgement of the potential for screening discomfort. We tested age‐targeted versions (vs. generic) of some messages. The primary outcome was screening intention strength. Results: After adjusting for baseline intention, social norms (p =.425), outcome expectancy (p =.367), risk reduction (p =.090), response efficacy (p =.136) and discomfort acknowledgement messages (p =.181) had no effect on intention strength. Age‐targeted messages did not result in greater intention than generic ones. Conclusions: There was no evidence that a single message used to convey social norms, outcome expectancy, risk reduction or response efficacy had an impact on intention strength for older women who did not plan to be screened in future. [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]