Dataset Information

Intentions to participate in cervical and colorectal cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods study.

ABSTRACT: Worldwide, cancer screening faced significant disruption in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. If this has led to changes in public attitudes towards screening and reduced intention to participate, there is a risk of long-term adverse impact on cancer outcomes. In this study, we examined previous participation and future intentions to take part in cervical and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening following the first national lockdown in the UK. Overall, 7543 adults were recruited to a cross-sectional online survey in August-September 2020. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify correlates of strong screening intentions among 2319 participants eligible for cervical screening and 2502 eligible for home-based CRC screening. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of 30 participants. Verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically. Of those eligible, 74% of survey participants intended to attend cervical screening and 84% intended to complete home-based CRC screening when next invited. Thirty percent and 19% of the cervical and CRC samples respectively said they were less likely to attend a cancer screening appointment now than before the pandemic. Previous non-participation was the strongest predictor of low intentions for cervical (aOR 26.31, 95% CI: 17.61-39.30) and CRC (aOR 67.68, 95% CI: 33.91-135.06) screening. Interview participants expressed concerns about visiting healthcare settings but were keen to participate when screening programmes resumed. Intentions to participate in future screening were high and strongly associated with previous engagement in both programmes. As screening services recover, it will be important to monitor participation and to ensure people feel safe to attend.

SUBMITTER: Wilson R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8480143 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe success of COVID-19 vaccination programs relies on community attitudes, yet little is known about parents' views. We aimed to explore the reasons behind Australian parents' vaccine intentions for themselves and for their children.MethodThis mixed methods study relates to Wave 13 (January 2021) of a longitudinal study of Australian parents' experiences during COVID-19 and contained 1094 participants (83% mothers). We used multinomial logistic regression to understand demographic predictors of vaccine intention, and a descriptive template thematic analysis to analyse open-ended questions about parents' reasons for vaccine intentions for themselves and their children.Results64% of Australian parents intend on vaccination, 26% are unsure and 9% intend to decline; 48% intend to vaccinate their children, 38% are unsure, and 14% intend to decline. Relative to those intending to vaccinate, parents unsure (OR = -0.63, 95% CI: 0.46, -0.84, p = .002) or not intending (OR = -0.41, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.67 p < .001) to vaccinate were more likely to have lower trust in doctors. Similar predictors emerged for parents who did not intend to vaccinate their children (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.70, p < .001). Qualitative data indicated that many parents had not made a firm decision, including a lack of alignment between intentions and reasons. For example, parents who said 'yes' to vaccination, often then expressed hesitance and a focus on risks in their written response. Reasons for hesitancy for themselves included concerns about testing, side effects, and long-term outcomes. Similar themes were present for children, but parents expressed a strong desire to protect their children, and an eagerness for health information.ConclusionBased on prior research and the themes identified here, a multipronged campaign that includes education/promotion, good access to vaccines and role models, is likely to support parents to make informed decisions regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

Project description:BackgroundGiven the extent of the COVID-19 pandemic and uncertainty around the timing of its containment, understanding the experiences and responses of the perinatal population is essential for planning responsive maternity care both during and after the pandemic. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of pregnant people and their responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to identify how health care providers can support this population.MethodsThis was a mixed-methods, descriptive study with cross-sectional and qualitative descriptive components. We conducted the study between Mar. 20 and May 31, 2020, in British Columbia, Canada. Any pregnant person at any gestational age living in BC was eligible to participate. We collected quantitative data using online survey tools, including the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder questionnaire (GAD-7). We collected qualitative data using open-ended questions to explore people's thoughts, feelings and experiences during the pandemic. Participants were recruited using study posters distributed via prenatal care clinics and classes, LifeLabs and social media across the province. We used thematic and descriptive analyses to analyze the data, and we integrated the qualitative and quantitative findings at the interpretation level.ResultsThe study sample included 96 participants with mean (± standard deviation) maternal and gestational ages of 32 ± 3.92 years and 22.73 ± 8.93 weeks, respectively. Most (93%; n = 89) identified as female. Of the participants, 54% (n = 50) and 35% (n = 34) reported anxiety and depressive symptoms, as measured by the GAD-7 and EPDS, respectively. Overarching themes that emerged from the qualitative data included uncertainty about birth plans and setting, added burden to existing health and social disparities, perceived or projected lack of support or limited support, concerns about early development, and struggle over managing multiple demands. Perceived maternity care needs included mental health support, maintaining prenatal care, frequent and proactive check-ins to build rapport, and recommendations specific to the pandemic.InterpretationWe found that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the pregnant population has been substantial. The findings of this mixed-methods study can be used to help plan informed and evidence-based health care interventions to mitigate adverse effects and support mothers and families.

Project description:BackgroundWith the accumulation of evidence regarding potential harms of cancer screening in recent years, researchers, policy-makers, and the public are becoming more critical of population-based cancer screening. Consequently, a high-quality cancer screening program should consider individuals’ values and preferences when determining recommendations. In cervical cancer screening, offering women autonomy is considered a “person-centered” approach to health care services; however, it may impact the effectiveness of the program should women choose to not participate. As part of a larger project to investigate women’s cervical screening preferences and correlates of these preferences, this systematic review will capture quantitative and qualitative investigations of women’s cervical screening preferences and the methods used to elicit them.Design and methodsThis mixed methods synthesis will use a thematic analysis approach to synthesize qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods evidence. This protocol describes the methods that will be used in this investigation. A search strategy has been developed with a health librarian and peer reviewed using PRESS. Based on this strategy, five databases and the gray literature will be searched for studies that meet the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included individual studies will be examined using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Three reviewers will extract data from the primary studies on the tools or instruments used to elicit women’s preferences regarding cervical cancer screening, theoretical frameworks used, outcomes measured, the outstanding themes from quantitative and qualitative evidence, and the identified preferences for cervical cancer screening. We will describe the relationships between study results and the study population, “intervention” (e.g., tool or instrument), and context. We will follow the PRISMA reporting guideline. We will compare findings across studies and between study methods (e.g., qualitative versus quantitative study designs). The strength of the synthesized findings will be assessed using the validated GRADE and CERQual tool.DiscussionThis review will inform the development of a tool to elicit women’s cervical screening preferences. Understanding the methods used to elicit women’s preferences and what is known about women’s cervical screening preferences will be useful for guideline developers who wish to incorporate a woman-centered approach specifically for cervical screening guidelines.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016035737Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0310-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Project description:BackgroundNovel virus outbreaks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, may increase psychological distress among frontline workers. Psychological distress may lead to reduced performance, reduced employability or even burnout. In the present study, we assessed experienced psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic from a self-determination theory perspective.MethodsThis mixed-methods study, with repeated measures, used surveys (quantitative data) combined with audio diaries (qualitative data) to assess work-related COVID-19 experiences, psychological need satisfaction and frustration, and psychological distress over time. Forty-six participants (nurses, junior doctors, and consultants) completed 259 surveys and shared 60 audio diaries. Surveys and audio diaries were analysed separately.ResultsQuantitative results indicated that perceived psychological distress during COVID-19 was higher than pre-COVID-19 and fluctuated over time. Need frustration, specifically autonomy and competence, was positively associated with psychological distress, while need satisfaction, especially relatedness, was negatively associated with psychological distress. In the qualitative, thematic analysis, we observed that especially organisational logistics (rostering, work-life balance, and internal communication) frustrated autonomy, and unfamiliarity with COVID-19 frustrated competence. Despite many need frustrating experiences, a strong connection with colleagues and patients were important sources of relatedness support (i.e. need satisfaction) that seemed to mitigate psychological distress.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an increase of psychological distress among frontline workers. Both need frustration and need satisfaction explained unique variance of psychological distress, but seemed to originate from different sources. Challenging times require healthcare organisations to better support their professionals by tailored formal and informal support. We propose to address both indirect (e.g. organisation) and direct (e.g. colleagues) elements of the clinical and social environment in order to reduce need frustration and enhance need satisfaction.

Dataset Information

Intentions to participate in cervical and colorectal cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets