RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial impacts of lung cancer screening (LCS) can cause both harm to individuals and serve as barriers to screening participation and adherence. Early data suggest that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are moderated by certain factors (e.g. sociodemographic characteristics and beliefs), but evidence synthesis is lacking. This systematic review aimed to understand individual-level risk factors for psychosocial burden during LCS as a precursor to developing strategies to identify and support participants, and improve LCS engagement. METHODS: Four databases were searched for full-text articles published in English reporting any association between participant factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was assessed by two independent investigators; findings were synthesised narratively. The review was pre-registered with PROSPERO and adhered to PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Thirty-five articles were included; most (33/35) studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were pre-post (n = 13), cross-sectional (n = 13), qualitative (n = 8) and mixed-methods (n = 1) and conducted primarily in the United States (n = 17). Psychological burden in LCS varied, and was often associated with younger age, female gender, current smoking status or increased smoking history, lower education, lower socio-economic group, not being married or co-habiting and experience with cancer. However, results were mixed, and non-significant associations were also reported across all factors. Beliefs (e.g. fatalism, stigma and expectation of LDCT results) and comorbid psychological burden were also linked to psychosocial outcomes, but evidence was sparse. Associations between risk perception, other participant factors and other psychosocial outcomes was inconclusive, likely reflecting individual biases in risk conceptualisation. CONCLUSION(S): Several participant factors are consistently reported to be associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, though study heterogeneity and high risk of bias necessitate more robust evaluation. Further research on how perceptions, beliefs and expectations can be used to improve psychosocial outcomes during LCS is needed.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer screening (LCS) programs are being designed and implemented globally. Early data suggests that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are influenced by program factors, but evidence synthesis is needed. This systematic review aimed to elucidate the impact of service-level factors on psychosocial outcomes to inform optimal LCS program design and future implementation. METHODS: Four databases were searched from inception to July 2023. Inclusion criteria were full-text articles published in English that reported an association between any program factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was appraised, and findings were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Thirty-two articles were included; 29 studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were RCT (n = 3), pre-post (n = 6), cross-sectional (n = 12), mixed-methods (n = 1), and qualitative (n = 10) studies, and conducted primarily in the USA (n = 25). Findings suggested that targeted interventions can improve smoking-related or decisional psychosocial outcomes (e.g., smoking cessation interventions increase readiness/motivation to quit) but impacts of interventions on other psychological outcomes were varied. There was limited evidence reporting association between service delivery components and psychological outcomes, and results suggested moderation by individual aspects (e.g., expectation of results, baseline anxiety). Opportunities for discussion were key in reducing psychological harm. CONCLUSIONS: Certain program factors are reportedly associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, but study heterogeneity and quality necessitate more real-world studies. Future work should examine (a) implementation of targeted interventions and high-value discussion during LCS, and (b) optimal methods and timing of risk and result communication, to improve psychosocial outcomes while reducing time burden for clinicians.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The transition of Australia's National Cervical Screening Program from cytology to a molecular test for human papillomavirus (HPV) (locally referred to as the 'Renewal'), including a longer five-year interval and older age at commencement, significantly impacted all sectors of program delivery. The Renewal had major implications for the roles and requirements of pathology laboratories providing services for the Program. This study aimed to understand the early impacts of the Renewal and its implementation on the pathology sector. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (N = 49) involved in the STakeholder Opinions of Renewal Implementation and Experiences Study (STORIES), 11-20 months after the program transition. A subset of interviews (N = 24) that discussed the pathology sector were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four overarching themes were identified: implementation enablers, challenges, missed opportunities, and possible improvements. Participants believed that the decision to transition to primary HPV screening was highly acceptable and evidence-based, but faced challenges due to impacts on laboratory infrastructure, resources, staffing, and finances. These challenges were compounded by unfamiliarity with new information technology (IT) systems and the new National Cancer Screening Register ('Register') not being fully functional by the date of the program transition. The limited availability of self-collection and lack of standardised fields in pathology forms were identified as missed opportunities to improve equity in the Program. To improve implementation processes, participants suggested increased pathology sector involvement in planning was needed, along with more timely and transparent communication from the Government, and clearer clinical management guidelines. CONCLUSION: The transition to primary HPV screening had a significant and multifaceted impact on the Australian pathology sector reflecting the magnitude and complexity of the Renewal. Strategies to support the pathology sector through effective change management, clear, timely, and transparent communication, as well as adequate funding sources will be critical for other countries planning to transition cervical screening programs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In this study, we aimed to document stakeholders' experiences of implementing Australia's renewed National Cervical Screening Program. In December 2017, the program changed from 2nd yearly cytology for 20-69 year olds to 5 yearly human papillomavirus (HPV) screening for women 25-74 years. We undertook semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders including government, program administrators, register staff, clinicians and health care workers, non-government organisations, professional bodies, and pathology laboratories from across Australia between Nov 2018 - Aug 2019. Response rate to emailed invitations was 49/85 (58%). We used Proctor et al's (2011) implementation outcomes framework to guide our questions and thematic analysis. We found that stakeholders were evenly divided over whether implementation was successful. There was strong support for change, but concern over aspects of the implementation. There was some frustration related to the delayed start, timeliness of communication and education, shortcomings in change management, lack of inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in planning and implementation, failure to make self-collection widely available, and delays in the National Cancer Screening Register. Barriers centred around a perceived failure to appreciate the enormity of the change and register build, and consequent failure to resource, project manage and communicate effectively. Facilitators included the good will and dedication of stakeholders, strong evidence base for change and the support of jurisdictions during the delay. We documented substantial implementation challenges, offering learnings for other countries transitioning to HPV screening. Sufficient planning, significant and transparent engagement and communication with stakeholders, and change management are critical.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: In December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program transitioned from 2-yearly cytology-based to 5-yearly human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening, including a vaginal self-collection option. Until July 2022, this option was restricted to under- or never-screened people aged 30 years and older who refused a speculum exam. We investigated the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders involved in, or affected by, the initial implementation of the restricted self-collection pathway. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 49 stakeholders as part of the STakeholder Opinions of Renewal Implementation and Experiences Study. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were thematically analysed and coded to the Conceptual Framework for Implementation Outcomes. RESULTS: Stakeholders viewed the introduction of self-collection as an exciting opportunity to provide under-screened people with an alternative to a speculum examination. Adoption in clinical practice, however, was impacted by a lack of clear communication and promotion to providers, and the limited number of laboratories accredited to process self-collected samples. Primary care providers tasked with communicating and offering self-collection described confusion about the availability, participant eligibility, pathology processes, and clinical management processes for self-collection. Regulatory delay in developing an agreed protocol to approve laboratory processing of self-collected swabs, and consequently initially having one laboratory nationally accredited to process samples, led to missed opportunities and misinformation regarding the pathway's availability. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the introduction of self-collection was welcomed, clear communication from Government regarding setbacks in implementation and how to overcome these in practice were needed. As Australia moves to a policy of providing everyone eligible for screening the choice of self-collection, wider promotion to providers and eligible people, clarity around pathology processes and the scaling up of test availability, as well as timely education and communication of clinical management practice guidelines, are needed to ensure smoother program delivery in the future. Other countries implementing self-collection policies can learn from the implementation challenges faced by Australia.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Intense research activity in HPV modelling over this decade has prompted the development of additional guidelines to those for general modelling. A specific framework is required to address different policy questions and unique complexities of HPV modelling. HPV-FRAME is an initiative to develop a consensus statement and quality-based framework for epidemiologic and economic HPV models. Its development involved an established process. Reporting standards have been structured according to seven domains reflecting distinct policy questions in HPV and cancer prevention and categorised by relevance to a population or evaluation. Population-relevant domains are: 1) HPV vaccination in pre-adolescent and young adolescent individuals; 2) HPV vaccination in older individuals; 3) targeted vaccination in men who have sex with men; 4) considerations for individuals living with HIV and 5) considerations for low- and middle-income countries. Additional considerations applicable to specific evaluations are: 6) cervical screening or integrated cervical screening and HPV vaccination approaches and 7) alternative vaccine types and alternative dosing schedules. HPV-FRAME aims to promote the development of models in accordance with an explicit framework, to better enable target audiences to understand a model's strength and weaknesses in relation to a specific policy question and ultimately improve the model's contribution to informed decision-making.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Using primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening increases detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplastic lesions and invasive cancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ [CIN2+]) compared to cytology, but no evaluation has been conducted in a population previously offered HPV vaccination. We aimed to assess colposcopy referral and CIN2+ detection rates for HPV-screened versus cytology-screened women in Australia's HPV-vaccinated population (by 2014, resident women ≤33 years had been age-eligible for HPV vaccination, with 3-dose uptake across age cohorts being about 50%-77%). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Compass is an open-label randomised trial of 5-yearly HPV screening versus 2.5-yearly liquid-based cytology (LBC) screening. In the first phase, consenting women aged 25-64 years presenting for routine screening at 47 primary practices in Victoria, Australia, provided a cervical sample and were randomised at a central laboratory at a 1:2:2 allocation to (i) image-read LBC screening with HPV triage of low-grade cytology ('LBC screening'), (ii) HPV screening with those HPV16/18 positive referred to colposcopy and with LBC triage for other oncogenic (OHR) types ('HPV+LBC triage'), or (iii) HPV screening with those HPV16/18 positive referred to colposcopy and with dual-stained cytology triage for OHR types ('HPV+DS triage'). A total of 5,006 eligible women were recruited from 29 October 2013 to 7 November 2014 (recruitment rate 58%); of these, 22% were in the group age-eligible for vaccination. Data on 4,995 participants were analysed after 11 withdrawals; 998 were assigned to, and 995 analysed (99.7%) in, the LBC-screened group; 1,996 assigned to and 1,992 analysed (99.8%) in the HPV+LBC triage group; and 2,012 assigned to and 2,008 analysed (99.8%) in the HPV+DS triage group. No serious trial-related adverse events were reported. The main outcomes were colposcopy referral and detected CIN2+ rates at baseline screening, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis after follow-up of the subgroup of triage-negative women in each arm referred to 12 months of surveillance, and after a further 6 months of follow-up for histological outcomes (dataset closed 31 August 2016). Analysis was adjusted for whether women had been age-eligible for HPV vaccination or not. For the LBC-screened group, the overall referral and detected CIN2+ rates were 27/995 (2.7% [95% CI 1.8%-3.9%]) and 1/995 (0.1% [95% CI 0.0%-0.6%]), respectively; for HPV+LBC triage, these were 75/1,992 (3.8% [95% CI 3.0%-4.7%]) and 20/1,992 (1.0% [95% CI 0.6%-1.5%]); and for HPV+DS triage, these were 79/2,008 (3.9% [95% CI 3.1%-4.9%]) and 24/2,008 (1.2% [95% CI 0.8%-1.6%]) (p = 0.09 for difference in referral rate in LBC versus all HPV-screened women; p = 0.003 for difference in CIN2+ detection rate in LBC versus all HPV-screened women, with p = 0.62 between HPV screening groups). Limitations include that the study population involved a relatively low risk group in a previously well-screened and treated population, that individual women's vaccination status was unknown, and that long-term follow-up data on disease detection in screen-negative women are not yet available. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, primary HPV screening was associated with significantly increased detection of high-grade precancerous cervical lesions compared to cytology, in a population where high vaccine uptake was reported in women aged 33 years or younger who were offered vaccination. It had been predicted that increased disease detection might be associated with a transient increase in colposcopy referral rates in the first round of HPV screening, possibly dampened by HPV vaccine effect; in this study, although the point estimates for referral rates in women in each HPV-screened group were 41%-44% higher than in cytology-screened women, the difference in referral rate between cytology- and HPV-screened women was not significant. These findings provide initial support for the implementation of primary HPV screening in vaccinated populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001207707.

Asunto(s)