Dataset Information

A Thematic Analysis of Attitudes Toward Changes to Cervical Screening in Australia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) was changed to encompass a 5-yearly human papillomavirus (HPV) primary test for women aged 25 to 74 years. Public concerns about changes to screening programs has been demonstrated in other countries previously.

Objective

The aim of the study was to explore in depth women's understanding of and concerns about the specific changes to the Australian NCSP implemented in December 2017.

Methods

A Web-based petition (Change.org) opposing the changes received over 70,000 signatures and nearly 20,000 comments from February to March 2017. Of 19,633 comments, a random sample of 10% (2000/19,633) were analyzed using content analysis (reported elsewhere). Comments relating directly to the specific changes to the program were further analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis.

Results

Around one-third (34.55%; 691/2000) of the total comments were related to concerns about specific changes to the program. The greatest concern was that screening intervals would be too long and that cancer may not be detected in time for successful treatment. Missing cancer in younger women (aged <25 years) was also an important concern, perceiving younger women to remain at significant risk. Notably, concern was rarely expressed about the new test (the HPV test).

Conclusions

Gaps in knowledge and understanding about changes to the program and the rationale behind these have caused health concerns among women. Worry about the extended screening interval indicates little understanding of the slow progression of the HPV infection to cervical cancer or the high rates of regression. Identification of these knowledge gaps can inform both deintensification of other cancer screening programs and practitioners, so that they are able to address these concerns with their patients.

SUBMITTER: Dodd RH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6482401 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Thematic Analysis of Attitudes Toward Changes to Cervical Screening in Australia.

Dodd Rachael H RH Obermair Helena M HM McCaffery Kirsten J KJ

JMIR cancer 20190411 1

<h4>Background</h4>In December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) was changed to encompass a 5-yearly human papillomavirus (HPV) primary test for women aged 25 to 74 years. Public concerns about changes to screening programs has been demonstrated in other countries previously.<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of the study was to explore in depth women's understanding of and concerns about the specific changes to the Australian NCSP implemented in December 2017.<h4>Methods</h ...[more]

PMID: 30973340

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cervical cancer is the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among women in Tanzania. Knowledge of and willingness to receive a cervical cancer screening are important determinants of prevention. This study aimed to describe women's awareness of cervical cancer and to explore the attitudes toward, acceptability of and barriers to cervical cancer screening (CCS) in Zanzibar. METHODS:A cross-sectional study was conducted from March to June 2018 involving 1483 women from 10 districts in Zanzibar who responded to questionnaires concerning their general demo-graphic characteristics, screening willingness and awareness of cervical cancer. Chi-square tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and stepwise multiple regression were conducted using STATA 15.1 software. RESULTS:The average total knowledge score (TKS) was 7.84?±?5.32 on a 23-point scale. Educational level and family income were positively correlated with the TKS. Previous schistosomiasis history and family genetic disease history were strong predictors of screening willingness. Women were less likely to be screened freely if they had 7 or more deliveries and were unaware of any previous family tumor history. Age and educational level were negatively associated non-free screening willingness, while family income was positively associated; being divorced/widowed or single and being unaware of any previous family tumor history were predictors of screening reluctance, while previous disease history was a strong predictor of non-free screening willingness. Fear of screening and inconvenience were the primary concerns among the Zanzibari interviewees. Compared to the 20-49 age group, more women in the less than 20 and 50 or more age groups thought cervical cancer screening was not necessary. The highest rate of cognitive accuracy in regard to cervical cancer warning signs and risk factors was only 37.76%. CONCLUSIONS:The findings revealed that knowledge of cervical cancer was poor. Educational level, family income and awareness of previous disease history were significant influencing factors of screening uptake. Specific awareness programs to increase knowledge of cervical cancer and screening willingness should be designed and implemented in the public without delay, especially for younger and elderly women.

Project description:BackgroundThe National Cervical Screening Program in Australia currently recommends that women aged 18-69 years are screened with conventional cytology every 2 years. Publicly funded HPV vaccination was introduced in 2007, and partly as a consequence, a renewal of the screening program that includes a review of screening recommendations has recently been announced. This study aimed to provide a baseline for such a review by quantifying screening program resource utilisation and costs in 2010.MethodsA detailed model of current cervical screening practice in Australia was constructed and we used data from the Victorian Cervical Cytology Registry to model age-specific compliance with screening and follow-up. We applied model-derived rate estimates to the 2010 Australian female population to calculate costs and numbers of colposcopies, biopsies, treatments for precancer and cervical cancers in that year, assuming that the numbers of these procedures were not yet substantially impacted by vaccination.ResultsThe total cost of the screening program in 2010 (excluding administrative program overheads) was estimated to be A$194.8M. We estimated that a total of 1.7 million primary screening smears costing $96.7M were conducted, a further 188,900 smears costing $10.9M were conducted to follow-up low grade abnormalities, 70,900 colposcopy and 34,100 histological evaluations together costing $21.2M were conducted, and about 18,900 treatments for precancerous lesions were performed (including retreatments), associated with a cost of $45.5M for treatment and post-treatment follow-up. We also estimated that $20.5M was spent on work-up and treatment for approximately 761 women diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer. Overall, an estimated $23 was spent in 2010 for each adult woman in Australia on cervical screening program-related activities.ConclusionsApproximately half of the total cost of the screening program is spent on delivery of primary screening tests; but the introduction of HPV vaccination, new technologies, increasing the interval and changing the age range of screening is expected to have a substantial impact on this expenditure, as well as having some impact on follow-up and management costs. These estimates provide a benchmark for future assessment of the impact of changes to screening program recommendations to the costs of cervical screening in Australia.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In Australia and other developed countries, chronic illness prevalence is increasing, as are costs of healthcare, particularly hospital-based care. Integrating healthcare and supporting illness management in the community can be a means of preventing illness, improving outcomes and reducing unnecessary hospitalisation. Western Sydney has high rates of diabetes, heart and respiratory diseases and the NSW State Ministry of Health funded a range of key strategies through the Western Sydney Integrated Care Program (WSICP) to integrate care across hospital and community settings for patients with these illnesses. Complementing our previously reported analysis related to specific WSICP strategies, this research provided information concerning overall experiences and perspectives of WSICP implementation and integrated care generally. METHODS:We administered 125 in-depth interviews in two rounds over 12?months with 83 participants including patients and their carers, care facilitators, hospital specialists and nurses, allied health professionals, general practitioners and primary care nurses, and program managers. Half of the participants (n =?42) were interviewed twice. We conducted an inductive, thematic analysis on the interview transcripts. RESULTS:Key themes related to the set-up and operationalising of WSICP; challenges encountered; and the added value of the program. Implementing WSICP was a large and time consuming undertaking but challenges including those with staffing and information technology were being addressed. The WSICP was considered valuable in reducing hospital admissions due to improved patient self-management and a focus on prevention, greater communication and collaboration between healthcare providers across health sectors and an increased capacity to manage chronic illness in the primary care setting. CONCLUSIONS:Patients, carers and health providers experienced the WSICP as an innovative integrated care model and valued its patient-centred approach which was perceived to improve access to care, increase patient self-management and illness prevention, and reduce hospital admissions. Long-term sustainability of the WSICP will depend on retaining key staff, more effectively sharing information including across health sectors to support enhanced collaboration, and expanding the suite of activities into other illness areas and locations. Enhanced support for general practices to manage chronic illness in the community, in collaboration with hospital specialists is critical. Timely evaluation informs ongoing program implementation.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral countries are implementing a transition to HPV testing for cervical screening in response to the introduction of HPV vaccination and evidence indicating that HPV screening is more effective than cytology. In Australia, a 2017 transition from 2-yearly conventional cytology in 18-20 to 69 years to 5-yearly primary HPV screening in 25 to 74 years will involve partial genotyping for HPV 16/18 with direct referral to colposcopy for this higher risk group. The objective of this study was to determine the optimal management of women positive for other high-risk HPV types (not 16/18) ('OHR HPV').MethodsWe used a dynamic model of HPV transmission, vaccination, natural history and cervical screening to determine the optimal management of women positive for OHR HPV. We assumed cytology triage testing was used to inform management in this group and that those with high-grade cytology would be referred to colposcopy and those with negative cytology would receive 12-month surveillance. For those with OHR HPV and low-grade cytology (considered to be a single low-grade category in Australia incorporating ASC-US and LSIL), we evaluated (1) the 20-year risk of invasive cervical cancer assuming this group are referred for 12-month follow-up vs. colposcopy, and compared this to the risk in women with low-grade cytology under the current program (i.e. an accepted benchmark risk for 12-month follow-up in Australia); (2) the population-level impact of the whole program, assuming this group are referred to 12-month surveillance vs. colposcopy; and (3) the cost-effectiveness of immediate colposcopy compared to 12-month follow-up. Evaluation was performed both for HPV-unvaccinated cohorts and cohorts offered vaccination (coverage ~72%).FindingsThe estimated 20-year risk of cervical cancer is ?1.0% at all ages if this group are referred to colposcopy vs. ?1.2% if followed-up in 12 months, both of which are lower than the ?2.6% benchmark risk in women with low-grade cytology in the current program (who are returned for 12-month follow-up). At the population level, immediate colposcopy referral provides an incremental 1-3% reduction in cervical cancer incidence and mortality compared with 12-month follow-up, but this is in the context of a predicted 24-36% reduction associated with the new HPV screening program compared to the current cytology-based program. Furthermore, immediate colposcopy substantially increases the predicted number of colposcopies, with >650 additional colposcopies required to avert each additional case of cervical cancer compared to 12-month follow-up. Compared to 12-month follow-up, immediate colposcopy has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of A$104,600/LYS (95%CrI:A$100,100-109,100) in unvaccinated women and A$117,100/LYS (95%CrI:A$112,300-122,000) in cohorts offered vaccination [Indicative willingness-to-pay threshold: A$50,000/LYS].ConclusionsIn primary HPV screening programs, partial genotyping for HPV16/18 or high-grade triage cytology in OHR HPV positive women can be used to refer the highest risk group to colposcopy, but 12-month follow-up for women with OHR HPV and low-grade cytology is associated with a low risk of developing cervical cancer. Direct referral to colposcopy for this group would be associated with a substantial increase in colposcopy referrals and the associated harms, and is also cost-ineffective; thus, 12-month surveillance for women with OHR HPV and low-grade cytology provides the best balance between benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness.

Dataset Information

A Thematic Analysis of Attitudes Toward Changes to Cervical Screening in Australia.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A Thematic Analysis of Attitudes Toward Changes to Cervical Screening in Australia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets