Search

Objective: The coronavirus pandemic impacted health-seeking behaviour and access to primary care in Australia. We investigated factors associated with intention-to-attend and attendance of cervical screening during the pandemic, mainly in Victoria, Australia., Methods: We used questionnaire and attendance data (Aug 2020-Nov 2022) from Compass-PLUS, a sub-study of the Compass randomized-controlled trial of Human Papillomavirus-based vs cytology-based screening. Data was restricted to the HPV-screening arm for comparability to the national program. We investigated associations overall and for younger (25-39 years) and older (≥40 years) cohorts, between intention-to-attend/attendance, and socio-demographics, anxiety-related scores, and agreement with beliefs about screening during the pandemic (e.g. importance of screening, increased workload, working from home, risk of infection)., Results: Among 2,226 participants, positive intention to attend screening was more likely among those with a family history of cancer (p = 0.030) or living outside major cities (p = 0.024). Increased attendance was associated with increasing age (p < 0.001), prior regular cervical screening history [adjusted relative risk (aRR) for 2 screens in 6 years vs none: 1.23 (95 %CI 1.09,1.40); p < 0.001], and part-time employment or retirement compared to full-time employment [aRR:1.08 (1.02,1.14); aRR:1.12 (1.03, 1.22); respectively]. Lower attendance was related to increased agreement with statements indicating screening de-prioritisation (p-trend < 0.05) and higher recent anxiety, specifically in the older cohort (p-trend = 0.002)., Conclusions: Reduced priority of screening and heightened recent anxiety may partly explain indications of lower-than-expected cervical screening rates during the pandemic. It is important that catch-up of missed HPV screens is performed to prevent a possible increase in cancer diagnoses in the long term., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: KC and MS are co-PIs of an investigator-initiated trial of cervical screening, (Compass; ACTRN12613001207707 and NCT02328872) run by the Australian Centre for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer (ACPCC), which is a government-funded not-for-profit charity; ACPCC has received equipment and a funding contribution from Roche Molecular Diagnostics. KC, MS and DB are also co-PIs on a major investigator-initiated implementation program Elimination of Cervical Cancer in the Western Pacific (ECCWP) which receives support from the Minderoo Foundation, and equipment donations from Cepheid Inc. Neither KC, MS, nor their institutions have received direct funding from industry for any project. MS holds NHMRC grants for 5 projects, is the Director for Cancer Council Australia and Co-chair of HPV test characteristics expert panel and consultant for Cancer Care Ontario. MS’s institution, ACPCC, received donated HPV testing equipment for research purposes from the following companies: Roche, Seegene, Abbott, Becton Dickinson, Cepheid, AusDiganostics, Copan, Qiagen and Atila Biosystems. MAS reports salary support via fellowship grants from the NHMRC of Australia and Cancer Institute NSW and contracts paid to her institution (the Daffodil Centre) with the Commonwealth Department of Health (Australia) and National Screening Unit (New Zealand). The remaining authors have no conflicts of interests to declare., (© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background In mid-2022 Australia's National Cervical Screening Program made self-collection of a vaginal sample an option for screening for young women or people with a cervix aged 25 to 29 years for the first time. This study explored what young women thought about, and wanted to know about, self-collection, and what their future screening preferences are. Methods Young women (n =21), aged 24-29years, were recruited through social media. Semi-structured interviews explored screening history, screening preferences and thoughts about self-collection. Data were analysed using an a priori coding framework informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Results Young women valued the addition of self-collection to the national cervical screening program, believing it to be less invasive and more convenient. However, they also valued the choice to opt for a clinician-collected specimen if preferred. Conclusions Self-collection is a valuable addition to the National Cervical Screening Program. This study suggests that continued efforts are needed to raise awareness of its availability, and improve understanding about its accuracy, the ease of collection, that you still need to engage with a primary healthcare service to access it and that you can still opt for a clinician-collected test.

Background: The Japanese 2020 cervical screening guidelines recommend conventional cervical cytology screening every 2-years for women aged 20-69 years. The nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has also recently been approved in Japan. We therefore evaluated the cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening strategies alongside universal nonavalent HPV vaccination of girls (12-16 years)., Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using an age-specific Markov microsimulation model for Japan to evaluate total costs, quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), colposcopies, biopsies, precancer and cervical cancer treatments for 29 combined vaccination and screening strategies (conventional cytology, liquid-based cytology (LBC), HPV testing, and HPV self-collection). A cohort of 100,000 girls (12-16 years old) over a lifetime offered the nonavalent HPV vaccine was used (current vaccination coverage = 0.08%, current screening coverage = 43.7%). A discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and QALYs. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess robustness of the findings. Costs were reported in US dollars (2023)., Findings: Compared with conventional cytology, evaluated strategies would incur an additional cost of US$839,280-738,182,669 and gain 62,755-247,347 quality-adjusted-life-years. HPV testing distinguishing HPV16/18 with reflex LBC (3-yearly) would be most cost-effective (ICER = US$7511 per QALY gained). At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of 1-times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, the probability of it being cost-effective was 70%. At historically high vaccination coverage (70%) ICERs decreased overall but did not affect the ranking of the most cost-effective strategy. While a 5-yearly interval became more cost-effective than a 3-yearly interval. Including HPV self-collection for under-screened women made all strategies more cost-effective., Interpretation: At current cervical screening participation (43.7%) and low vaccination coverage (<1.0%), HPV testing distinguishing HPV16/18 with reflex LBC (3-yearly) would be the most cost-effective screening strategy compared to conventional cytology (2-yearly)., Funding: Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (17H03589) and Grants of the National Cancer Center Japan (Gan Kenkyu Kaihatsuhi 31-A-20 and 2023-A-23)., Competing Interests: KK received payment from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and National Cancer Center Japan. JSH received payment from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. JJO received payment from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Background: In July 2022, self-collection became universally available as part of Australia's National Cervical Screening Program. This change aims to address screening inequities experienced among underscreened populations, including women of Indian descent. This study explored experiences of cervical screening, alongside the acceptability of self-collection, among women of Indian descent living in Victoria, Australia. We also aimed to articulate the informational needs to promote self-collection among this population., Methods: Five focus group discussions with 39 women living in Victoria were conducted in English (n = 3) and Punjabi (n = 2). Transcripts were thematically analysed, as informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability., Results: Women were motivated by the choice to self-collect, perceiving the ability to maintain modesty and greater autonomy as key enablers. Healthcare practitioners were seen as central in supporting patient-centred models of care. Perceived barriers to self-collection included concerns around its accuracy and women's confidence in collecting their own sample. Widespread dissemination of culturally tailored promotion strategies communicating concepts such as 'privacy' and 'accuracy' were suggested by women to promote self-collection., Conclusion: Self-collection was highly acceptable among women of Indian descent, particularly when assured of its accuracy, and sociocultural norms and previous screening experiences are considered. This study highlights the huge potential that self-collection can play in increasing equity in Australia's cervical screening programme., Patient or Public Contribution: Members of the public were involved in focus group discussions. Findings were summarised and disseminated via a poster. A bicultural worker was involved in all stages of the research., (© 2024 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)