Acceptability of risk-based triage in cervical cancer screening: A focus group study.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
25
04
2023
accepted:
22
07
2023
medline:
18
8
2023
pubmed:
16
8
2023
entrez:
16
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Compared to the previous cytology-based program, the introduction of primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) based screening in 2017 has led to an increased number of referrals. To counter this, triage of hrHPV-positive women in cervical cancer screening can potentially be optimized by taking sociodemographic and lifestyle risk factors for cervical abnormalities into account. Therefore, it is essential to gain knowledge of the views of women (30-60 years) eligible for cervical cancer screening. The main goal of this qualitative study was to gain insight in the aspects that influence acceptability of risk-based triage in cervical cancer screening. A focus group study in which participants were recruited via four general medical practices, and purposive sampling was used to maximize heterogeneity with regards to age, education level, and cervical cancer screening experiences. The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. A total of 28 women (average age: 45.2 years) eligible for cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands participated in seven online focus group discussions. Half of the participants was higher educated, and the participants differed in previous cervical cancer screening participation and screening result. In total, 5 main themes and 17 subthemes were identified that determine the acceptability of risk-stratified triage. The main themes are: 1) adequacy of the screening program: an evidence-based program that is able to minimize cancer incidence and reduce unnecessary referrals; 2) personal information (e.g., sensitive topics and stigma); 3) emotional impact: fear and reassurance; 4) communication (e.g., transparency); and 5) autonomy (e.g., prevention). The current study highlights several challenges regarding the development and implementation of risk-based triage that need attention in order to be accepted by the target group. These challenges include dealing with sensitive topics and a transparent communication strategy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Compared to the previous cytology-based program, the introduction of primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) based screening in 2017 has led to an increased number of referrals. To counter this, triage of hrHPV-positive women in cervical cancer screening can potentially be optimized by taking sociodemographic and lifestyle risk factors for cervical abnormalities into account. Therefore, it is essential to gain knowledge of the views of women (30-60 years) eligible for cervical cancer screening.
OBJECTIVE
The main goal of this qualitative study was to gain insight in the aspects that influence acceptability of risk-based triage in cervical cancer screening.
DESIGN
A focus group study in which participants were recruited via four general medical practices, and purposive sampling was used to maximize heterogeneity with regards to age, education level, and cervical cancer screening experiences.
APPROACH
The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.
PARTICIPANTS
A total of 28 women (average age: 45.2 years) eligible for cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands participated in seven online focus group discussions. Half of the participants was higher educated, and the participants differed in previous cervical cancer screening participation and screening result.
KEY RESULTS
In total, 5 main themes and 17 subthemes were identified that determine the acceptability of risk-stratified triage. The main themes are: 1) adequacy of the screening program: an evidence-based program that is able to minimize cancer incidence and reduce unnecessary referrals; 2) personal information (e.g., sensitive topics and stigma); 3) emotional impact: fear and reassurance; 4) communication (e.g., transparency); and 5) autonomy (e.g., prevention).
CONCLUSION
The current study highlights several challenges regarding the development and implementation of risk-based triage that need attention in order to be accepted by the target group. These challenges include dealing with sensitive topics and a transparent communication strategy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37585441
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289647
pii: PONE-D-23-06691
pmc: PMC10431661
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0289647Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Bas et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Sex Transm Infect. 2020 May;96(3):166-172
pubmed: 32001660
Patient Educ Couns. 2021 May;104(5):998-1017
pubmed: 33339657
Sex Med Rev. 2020 Jan;8(1):28-37
pubmed: 31791846
BMJ. 2016 Feb 10;352:i563
pubmed: 26865572
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2019 Jun;12(6):383-390
pubmed: 31003994
Br J Cancer. 2001 May 4;84(9):1219-26
pubmed: 11336474
Int J Cancer. 2015 Jan 15;136(2):340-9
pubmed: 24841989
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2002 Dec;23(4):257-61
pubmed: 12520863
Psychol Health. 2013 Jan;29(1):94-109
pubmed: 24006882
BMC Cancer. 2017 Jun 20;17(1):435
pubmed: 28633667
Patient Educ Couns. 2006 May;61(2):173-90
pubmed: 16122896
Cancer Causes Control. 2018 Mar;29(3):297-304
pubmed: 29450667
J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Nov;33(11):1905-1912
pubmed: 30066118
Womens Health (Lond). 2022 Jan-Dec;18:17455065221075904
pubmed: 35114865
Prev Med. 2020 Jan;130:105927
pubmed: 31756350
BJOG. 2021 Feb;128(3):573-582
pubmed: 32638462
Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Mar;160(3):713-720
pubmed: 33451725
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb;224(2):200.e1-200.e9
pubmed: 32800820
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020 Apr;247:163-175
pubmed: 32114321
Patient Educ Couns. 2020 Oct;103(10):1935-1960
pubmed: 32466864
J Pers Med. 2021 Feb 02;11(2):
pubmed: 33540785
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2019 Apr;23(2):87-101
pubmed: 30907775
Psychooncology. 2019 May;28(5):1056-1062
pubmed: 30848018
Am J Lifestyle Med. 2016 Jun 22;10(5):322-329
pubmed: 30202289
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2021 Jul;21(7):781-794
pubmed: 33663309
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Cancer Control. 2022 Jan-Dec;29:10732748211060289
pubmed: 34986038
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Nov 19;13(22):
pubmed: 34830965
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022 Mar;305(3):625-630
pubmed: 34825940
Int J Cancer. 2007 Feb 15;120(4):885-91
pubmed: 17131323
Virus Res. 2002 Nov;89(2):191-9
pubmed: 12445659
Prev Med. 2021 Dec;153:106849
pubmed: 34662598
BMC Med. 2019 Dec 11;17(1):228
pubmed: 31829241
Br J Soc Psychol. 2001 Dec;40(Pt 4):471-99
pubmed: 11795063
Sci Rep. 2022 Jul 15;12(1):12083
pubmed: 35840652