The impact of age-relevant and generic infographics on knowledge, attitudes and intention to attend cervical screening: A randomized controlled trial

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, η p 2 $${\eta}_p^2$$  = .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, η p 2 $${\eta}_p^2$$  < .001], but the age-targeted version was more engaging [F(1, 608) = 9.41, p = .002, η p 2 $${\eta}_p^2$$  = .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

Cervical screening attendance and cervical cancer risk among women who have sex with women

Objectives: To describe cervical cancer screening participation among women who have sex exclusively with women (WSEW) and women who have sex with women and men (WSWM) compared with women who have sex exclusively with men (WSEM), and women who have never had sex and compare this with bowel (colorectal) and breast screening participation. To explore whether there is evidence of differential stage 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3) or cervical cancer risk. Methods: We describe cervical, bowel and breast cancer screening uptake in age groups eligible for the national screening programmes, prevalent CIN3 and cervical cancer at baseline, and incident CIN3 and cervical cancer at five years follow-up, among 218,674 women in UK Biobank, a cohort of healthy volunteers from the UK. Results: Compared with WSEM, in adjusted analysis [odds ratio (95% confidence interval)], WSEW 0.10 (0.08–0.13), WSWM 0.73 (0.58–0.91), and women who have never had sex 0.02 (0.01–0.02) were less likely to report ever having attended cervical screening. There were no differences when considering bowel cancer screening uptake (p = 0.61). For breast cancer screening, attendance was lower among WSWM 0.79 (0.68 to 0.91) and women who have never had sex 0.47 (0.29–0.58), compared with WSEM. There were incident and prevalent cases of both CIN3 and cervical cancer among WSEW and WSWM. Compared with WSEM with a single male partner, among WSEW there was a twofold increase in CIN3 1.91 (1.01 to 3.59); among WSWM with only one male partner, this was 2.25 (1.19 to 4.24). Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of improving uptake of cervical screening among all women who have sex with women and breast screening among WSWM and women who have never had sex

A cluster randomised feasibility study of an adolescent incentive intervention to increase uptake of HPV vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is suboptimal among some groups. We aimed to determine the feasibility of undertaking a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of incentives to improve HPV vaccination uptake by increasing consent form return. METHODS: An equal-allocation, two-arm cluster RCT design was used. We invited 60 London schools to participate. Those agreeing were randomised to either a standard invitation or incentive intervention arm, in which Year 8 girls had the chance to win a £50 shopping voucher if they returned a vaccination consent form, regardless of whether consent was provided. We collected data on school and parent participation rates and questionnaire response rates. Analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: Six schools completed the trial and only 3% of parents opted out. The response rate was 70% for the girls' questionnaire and 17% for the parents'. In the intervention arm, 87% of girls returned a consent form compared with 67% in the standard invitation arm. The proportion of girls whose parents gave consent for vaccination was higher in the intervention arm (76%) than the standard invitation arm (61%). CONCLUSIONS: An RCT of an incentive intervention is feasible. The intervention may improve vaccination uptake but a fully powered RCT is needed.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication: 22 August 2017; doi:10.1038/bjc.2017.284 www.bjcancer.com

Cancer fear and fatalism among ethnic minority women in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND: Cancer fear and fatalism are believed to be higher in ethnic minorities and may contribute to lower engagement with cancer prevention and early detection. We explored the levels of cancer fear and fatalism in six ethnic groups in the United Kingdom and examined the contribution of acculturation and general fatalism. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 720 White British, Caribbean, African, Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi women (120 of each) was conducted. Three items assessed cancer fear and two cancer fatalism. Acculturation was assessed using (self-reported) migration status, ability to speak English, and understanding of health leaflets; general fatalism with a standard measure. RESULTS: Relative to White British women, African and Indian women were more fearful of cancer, Bangladeshi women less fearful, and Pakistani and Caribbean women were similar to White British women. Cancer fatalism was higher in all the ethnic minority groups compared with White British women. Less acculturated women were less likely to worry (ORs 0.21-0.45, all P<0.05) or feel particularly afraid (ORs 0.11-0.31, all P<0.05) but more likely to feel uncomfortable about cancer (ORs 1.97-3.03, all P<0.05). Lower acculturation (ORs 4.30-17.27, P<0.05) and general fatalism (OR 2.29, P<0.05) were associated with the belief that cancer is predetermined. CONCLUSIONS: In general, cancer fear and fatalism are more prevalent among ethnic minority than White British women and even more so in less acculturated ethnic minorities. This may affect their participation in cancer prevention and early detection

Barriers to cervical screening and interest in self-sampling among women who actively decline screening

Objectives: Understanding why some women actively decline cervical screening could contribute to tailored intervention development. We explored reasons for non-participation in cervical screening among women who had made an active decision not to attend in the future. We also explored interest in human papillomavirus self-sampling. // Methods: In a population-based survey of women in Great Britain, home-based computer-assisted interviews were carried out with screening eligible women. Women reported their intention to attend for screening when next invited. They endorsed predefined barriers to screening and indicated their interest in human papillomavirus self-sampling. // Results: Women who had actively declined screening and those who intended to go but were currently overdue (n=543) were included in this analysis. Women who had made an active decision not to be screened in the future were more likely to endorse the barriers ‘I have other more important things to worry about’ and to perceive screening to be of low relevance based on their sexual behaviour. Most participants (70%) indicated that they would be interested in human papillomavirus self-sampling. Interest in self-sampling was greater among those who reported having had a bad experience of screening in the past, were too busy or embarrassed to attend, or would not want a man to carry out the test. // Conclusions: Women who had made an active decision not to attend screening felt it was of low relevance to them and that they had more important things to worry about. Shifting the perceived cost–benefit ratio for these women by offering human papillomavirus self-sampling might increase screening participation in this group

Non-speculum clinician-taken samples for human papillomavirus testing:a cross-sectional study in older women

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer incidence and mortality are high in women aged ≥65 years, despite the disease being preventable by screening. Speculum-based screening can become more uncomfortable after the menopause. AIM: To examine test performance and acceptability of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on clinician-collected vaginal samples without a speculum (non-speculum). DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study in 11 GP practices and four colposcopy clinics in London, UK, between August 2017 and January 2019. METHOD: Non-speculum and conventional (speculum) samples were collected from women aged ≥50 years attending for a colposcopy (following a speculum HPV-positive screening result) or women aged ≥35 years (with confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+), and women aged 50–64 years attending routine screening. Sensitivity to CIN2+ was assessed among women with confirmed CIN2+ (colposcopy). Specificity to HPV relative to speculum sampling and overall concordance was assessed among women with negative cytology (routine screening). RESULTS: The sensitivity of non-speculum sampling for detecting CIN2+ was 83.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 60.8 to 94.2) (n = 15/18). There was complete concordance among women with positive CIN2+ who had a speculum sample ≤91 days prior to the non-speculum sample (n = 12). Among 204 women with negative cytology, the specificity to HPV was 96.4% (95% CI = 92.7 to 98.5), with 96.6% concordant results (κ 72.4%). Seventy-one percent (n = 120/170) of women preferred a non-speculum sample for their next screen. CONCLUSION: HPV testing on non-speculum clinician-taken samples is a viable approach that warrants further exploration in larger studies. Overall test performance was broadly comparable with that of self-sampling

Barriers to cervical screening and interest in self-sampling among women who actively decline screening

Objectives: Understanding why some women actively decline cervical screening could contribute to tailored intervention development. We explored reasons for non-participation in cervical screening among women who had made an active decision not to attend in the future. We also explored interest in human papillomavirus self-sampling. // Methods: In a population-based survey of women in Great Britain, home-based computer-assisted interviews were carried out with screening eligible women. Women reported their intention to attend for screening when next invited. They endorsed predefined barriers to screening and indicated their interest in human papillomavirus self-sampling. // Results: Women who had actively declined screening and those who intended to go but were currently overdue (n=543) were included in this analysis. Women who had made an active decision not to be screened in the future were more likely to endorse the barriers ‘I have other more important things to worry about’ and to perceive screening to be of low relevance based on their sexual behaviour. Most participants (70%) indicated that they would be interested in human papillomavirus self-sampling. Interest in self-sampling was greater among those who reported having had a bad experience of screening in the past, were too busy or embarrassed to attend, or would not want a man to carry out the test. // Conclusions: Women who had made an active decision not to attend screening felt it was of low relevance to them and that they had more important things to worry about. Shifting the perceived cost–benefit ratio for these women by offering human papillomavirus self-sampling might increase screening participation in this group