Maximising the acceptability of extended time intervals between screens in the NHS Cervical Screening Programme: An online experimental study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: 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.
SUBMITTER: Hill E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8366181 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundTraditional methods for collecting outdoor resting mosquitoes are generally inefficient with relatively low numbers caught per unit effort. The barrier screen, designed to intercept mosquitoes as they fly between areas where blood meals are obtained and oviposition sites where eggs are laid, was developed in 2013 as a novel method of sampling outdoor mosquito populations. Barrier screens do not use an odorant lure and are thus a non-mechanical, simple, low maintenance and passive sampling method for use, even in isolated locations.MethodsTo maximise mosquito collections from barrier screens, multiple Latin square 3 × 3 experiments were conducted in Smithfield, Queensland, Australia. Parameters of barrier screens were varied including the effects of construction materials (net weight and colour), screen design and frequency of inspections.ResultsSignificantly more mosquitoes were collected on simple dark coloured screens of 50% or 70% shading weight with collections every 30 min. Sixty percent of mosquitoes were found on barrier screens within 60 cm of the ground.ConclusionsThe barrier screen is a relatively new adaptable tool that can answer a number of behavioural, ecological and epidemiological questions relevant for the surveillance and basic understanding of the movement and resting habits of mosquitoes by sex or physiological status. This method has demonstrated robustness in collecting a wide range of mosquito species as well as flexibility in where barrier screens can be deployed to explore mosquito movements within rural and peri-domestic environments.
| S-EPMC6332603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo update a rapid review published in 2017, which evaluated the NHS Health Check programme.MethodsAn enlarged body of evidence was used to readdress six research objectives from a rapid review published in 2017, relating to the uptake, patient experiences and effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme. Data sources included MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Global Health, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, ClinicalTrials.gov and the ISRCTN registry, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, The Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, OpenGrey and hand searching article reference lists. These searches identified records from between January 1996 and December 2019. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal using the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme checklists were performed in duplicate. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations was implemented. Data were synthesised narratively.Results697 studies were identified, and 29 new studies included in the review update. The number of published studies on the uptake, patient experiences and effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme has increased by 43% since the rapid review published in 2017. However, findings from the original review remain largely unchanged. NHS Health Checks led to an overall increase in the detection of raised risk factors and morbidities including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, raised blood pressure, cholesterol and chronic kidney disease. Individuals most likely to attend the NHS Health Check programme included women, persons aged ≥60 years and those from more socioeconomically advantaged backgrounds. Opportunistic invitations increased uptake among men, younger persons and those with a higher deprivation level.ConclusionsAlthough results are inconsistent between studies, the NHS Health Check programme is associated with increased detection of heightened cardiovascular disease risk factors and diagnoses. Uptake varied between population subgroups. Opportunistic invitations may increase uptake.
| S-EPMC8852663 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The devastating impact of COVID-19 on individuals and communities has accelerated the development of vaccines and the deployment of ambitious vaccination programmes to reduce the risks of infection, infection transmission and symptom severity. However, many people delay or refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19, for many complex reasons. Vaccination programmes that are tailored to address individual and communities' COVID-19 concerns can improve vaccine uptake rates and help achieve the required herd-immunity threshold. The Maximising Uptake Programme has led to the vaccination of 7979 people from February-August 2021 in the South West of England, UK, who are at high risk of severe illness from COVID-19 and/or may not access the COVID-19 vaccines through mass vaccination centres and general practices. These include: people experiencing homelessness; non-English-speaking people; people from minority ethnic groups; refugees and asylum seekers; Gypsy, Roma, Travelers and boat people; and those who are less able to access vaccination centres, such as people with learning difficulties, serious mental illness, drug and alcohol dependence, people with physical and sensory impairment, and people with dementia. Outreach work coupled with a targeted communication and engagement campaign, co-designed with community leaders and influencers, have led to significant engagement and COVID-19 vaccine uptake among the target populations.
| S-EPMC9227842 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe NHS Health Check aims to identify individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) among the adult population in England. The Health Check includes calculation of CVD risk and discussion of pharmacological and lifestyle approaches to manage risk, including referral to lifestyle support services. The programme is commissioned by Local Authorities (LAs) and is delivered by a range of different providers in different settings. There is significant variation in activity, with uptake ranging from 25% to 85% in different areas, and clear evidence of variation in implementation and delivery practice.Methods and analysisWe aim to understand how the NHS Health Check programme works in different settings, for different groups, so that we can recommend improvements to maximise intended outcomes. To do so, we will undertake a realist review and a survey of LA public health teams. Our review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages: (1) locate existing theories, (2) search for evidence, (3) article selection, (4) extract and organise data and (5) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions. Our review will include documents describing local implementation alongside published research studies. We will recruit a stakeholder group (including Public Health England, commissioners and providers of Health Checks, plus members of the public and patients) to advise us throughout. Our survey will be sent to all 152 LAs in England to gather detailed information on programme delivery (including COVID-19-related changes) and available referral services. This will enable us to map delivery across England and relate these data to programme outcomes.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this review. For the survey, we have received approval from the University of Kent Research Ethics Committee. Our findings will be used to develop recommendations on tailoring, implementation and design strategies to improve delivery of the NHS Health Check in different settings, for different groups.Prospero registration numberCRD42020163822.
| S-EPMC8054100 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Evaluation of the demonstrator phase and first wave roll-out of the National Health Service (NHS) Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) in England. To examine: (1) intervention design, provision and fidelity assessment procedures; (2) risk assessment and recruitment pathways and (3) data collection for monitoring and evaluation. To provide recommendations informing decision makers on programme quality, improvements and future evaluation. DESIGN:We reviewed programme documents, mapping against the NHS DPP specification and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public health guideline: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention in people at high risk (PH38), conducted qualitative research using individual interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders and examined recruitment, fidelity and data collection procedures. SETTING:Seven NHS DPP demonstrator sites and, subsequently, 27 first wave areas across England. INTERVENTIONS:Intensive behavioural intervention with weight loss, diet and physical activity goals. The national programme specifies at least 13 sessions over 9?months, delivered face to face to groups of 15-20 adults with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia, mainly recruited from primary care and NHS Health Checks. PARTICIPANTS:Participants for qualitative research were purposively sampled to provide a spread of stakeholder experience. Documents for review were provided via the NHS DPP Management Group. FINDINGS:The NHS DPP specification reflected current evidence with a clear framework for service provision. Providers, with national capacity to deliver, supplied intervention plans compliant with this framework. Stakeholders highlighted limitations in fidelity assessment and recruitment and retention challenges, especially in reach and equity, that could adversely impact on implementation. Risk assessment for first wave eligibility differed from NICE guidance. CONCLUSIONS:The NHS DPP provides an evidence-based behavioural intervention for prevention of T2D in adults at high risk, with capacity to deliver nationally. Framework specification allows for balance between consistency and contextual variation in intervention delivery, with session details devolved to providers. Limitations in fidelity assurance, data collection procedures and recruitment issues could adversely impact on intervention effectiveness and restrict evaluation.
| S-EPMC5855311 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the overall cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme, based on findings of the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening and taking into account the uncertainty of associated estimates of benefits, harms, and costs.DesignA life table model comparing data from two cohorts.SettingUnited Kingdom's health service.Participants and interventions364,500 women aged 50 years-the population of 50 year old women in England and Wales who would be eligible for screening-were followed up for 35 years without screening, compared with a similar cohort who had regular mammographic screening between ages 50 and 70 years and were then followed for another 15 years.Main outcome measuresBetween the cohorts, we compared the number of breast cancer diagnoses, number of deaths from breast cancer, number of deaths from other causes, person years of survival adjusted for health quality, and person years of survival with breast cancer. We also calculated the costs of treating primary and end stage breast cancer, and the costs of screening. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis explored the effect of uncertainty in key input parameters on the model outputs.ResultsUnder the base case scenario (using input parameters derived from the Independent Panel Review), there were 1521 fewer deaths from breast cancer and 2722 overdiagnosed breast cancers. Discounting future costs and benefits at a rate of 3.5% resulted in an additional 6907 person years of survival in the screened cohort, at a cost of 40,946 additional years of survival after a diagnosis of breast cancer. Screening was associated with 2040 additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at an additional cost of £42.5m (€49.8m; $64.7m) in total or £20,800 per QALY gained. The gain in person time survival over 35 years was 9.2 days per person and 2.7 quality adjusted days per person screened. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that this incremental cost effectiveness ratio varied widely across a range of plausible scenarios. Screening was cost effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained in 2260 (45%) scenarios, but in 588 (12%) scenarios, screening was associated with a reduction in QALYs.ConclusionThe NHS breast screening programme is only moderately likely to be cost effective at a standard threshold. However, there is substantial uncertainty in the model parameter estimates, and further primary research will be needed for cost effectiveness studies to provide definitive data to inform policy.
| S-EPMC3649817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Many U.S. women continue to be screened annually for cervical cancer, despite current guidelines that recommend 3- or 5-year screening intervals depending on screening modality and patient age. METHODS:Data from 2012 and 2015 web-based surveys of U.S. adults were analyzed in 2017 to investigate U.S. women's cervical cancer screening preferences. The study was limited to women aged ?18 years without a hysterectomy or cervical cancer diagnosis (2012 n=1,380, 2015 n=1,339). RESULTS:Women's preference for 3- or 5-year screening intervals doubled during the study period (2012: 31.2%, 2015: 64.2%, p<0.001). The most preferred screening options in 2015 were co-testing every 3 years with the Pap and human papillomavirus tests (34.0%) and annual Pap testing (30.4%)-neither of which were recommended at that time or currently. Use of 3- and 5-year Pap testing intervals increased during the study period (2012: 6.9%, 2015: 12.9%, p<0.001), whereas annual Pap testing declined (2012: 48.5%, 2015: 35.6%, p<0.001). Among women who were regularly screened and preferred 3- or 5-year screening intervals, the minority reported screening practices that matched this preference (2012: 24.1%, 2015: 29.3%, p=0.71). CONCLUSIONS:Women's preference for longer cervical cancer screening intervals has increased rapidly and outpaced utilization. At the same time, many women continue to be screened annually. Expanding appropriate screening may require increasing women's and providers' comfort with screening recommendations.
| S-EPMC6102077 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the adoption of HPV testing and recommended extended cervical cancer screening intervals in clinical practice, we described yearly uptake of Pap/HPV cotesting and estimated length of time between normal screens by patient characteristics.MethodsWe examined 55,575 Pap/HPV records from 27,035 women aged 30-65 years from the Johns Hopkins Hospital Pathology Data System between 2006 and 2013. Cotest uptake and median times to next screening test for cotests and cytology only were calculated. Adjusted hazard ratios were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models, with random effects adjustment for clustering within clinic.ResultsCotest usage increased from < 10% in 2006 to 78% in 2013. The median time to next screening test following normal cytology alone remained constant around 1.5 years. Screening intervals following a dual-negative cotest increased from 1.5 years in 2006/2007 to 2.5 years in 2010, coincident with increases in the proportion of women cotested. Intervals following a dual negative cotest were longer among Medicare patients (3 years) compared with privately insured women (2.5 years), and shorter among black (2 years) compared with white women (2.8 years).ConclusionBy mid-2013 we observed broad adoption of Pap/HPV cotesting in routine screening in a large academic medical center. Increased screening intervals were observed only among cotested women, while those screened by cytology alone continued to be screened almost annually. The influence of different combinations of race and insurance on screening intervals should be further evaluated to ensure balance of screening risks and benefits in the U.S.Population
| S-EPMC5754229 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8642809 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Most types of population-based cancer screening require repeat participation to be effective. This study investigated predictors of repeat participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP).The BCSP in England offers biennial colorectal cancer screening using a guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBt) from age 60-74 years. This analysis included 62,081 individuals aged 60-64 years at the time of the first invitation (R1). The main outcome was repeat participation at their second (R2) or third (R3) invitation. Behavioural measures derived from screening records included late return of the gFOBt kit, compliance with follow-up investigations and previous screening participation. Other potential predictors of repeat participation included results of individual test kit analysis (normal, weak positive, strong positive, spoilt) and the definitive result of the gFOBt screening episode (normal or abnormal). Age, sex and socioeconomic deprivation were also recorded.Overall repeat uptake was 86.6% in R2 and 88.6% in R3. Late return of the test kit was consistently associated with lower uptake (R2: 82.3% vs 88.6%, P<0.001; R3: 84.5% vs 90.5%, P<0.001). A definitive abnormal gFOBt result in the previous screening episode was a negative predictor of repeat uptake (R2: 61.4% vs 86.8%, P<0.001; R3: 65.7% vs 88.8%, P<0.001). Weak positive (R2: 76.9% vs 86.8%, P<0.001; R3: 81.7% vs 88.8%, P<0.05) and spoilt test kits (R2: 79.0% vs 86.6%, NS; R3: 84.2% vs 92.2%, P<0.05) were associated with lower repeat uptake, but were not consistently independent predictors in all invitation rounds or subgroups. Among those with a definitive abnormal gFOBt result, noncompliance with follow-up in a previous screening episode was also associated with lower repeat uptake (R2: 24.3% vs 67.1%, P<0.001; R3: 43.2% vs 69.9%, P<0.001).Behavioural markers and test results from previous screening episodes have been implicated in subsequent gFOBt uptake.
| S-EPMC4453613 | biostudies-other