Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Cervical screening attendance among 50–64 year-olds is suboptimal. Understanding attitudes to screening and reasons for non-attendance in older women will help to identify the content of interventions for this age group. This study aimed to explore barriers to cervical screening among women aged 50–64 years from hard-to-reach groups whose perspectives are often absent from research on cervical screening but are critical to developing appropriate interventions to increase engagement with the screening offer. Methods Qualitative methodology was used. Six focus groups were carried out with women aged 50–64 years from lower socio-economic and ethnic minority backgrounds ( n  = 38). Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed verbatim and translated where necessary. Data were analysed using the Framework Approach, a type of thematic analysis. Results All women had heard of cervical screening, but many felt they had poor knowledge. Women’s reasons for non-attendance were wide-ranging and included discomfort and embarrassment, negative perceptions of health professionals, worry and trust in the results, concern about the procedure, idiosyncratic beliefs, and extreme negative experiences. Some women reported not receiving letters or prompts to be screened. Conclusions Information designed specifically for older women should ensure they understand the purpose of screening and its relevance to them. Emphasising changes to the programme that have made the experience less uncomfortable, and improved sample taker awareness of how women feel, may help to allay concerns related to previous negative experiences.

Psychiatric emergencies may occur in the oncology ambulatory care setting as a result of psychiatric disorders among patients with cancer. Preparedness, assessment, management, and debriefing of psychiatric emergencies can ensure successful outcomes. The nurse has a role in all phases of a patient's psychiatric emergency AT A GLANCE * Patient agitation, with risk of harm to self or others, is the common clinical presentation of a psychiatric emergency * As members of the healthcare team, nurses can intervene quickly to ensure the safety of the patient and others. * Debriefing of the psychiatric emergency with the healthcare team and others provides insight for management of future events. KEYWORDS psychiatric disorders; psychiatric care; suicide; depression; anxiety

IntroductionAdults living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC)—defined as the presence of two or more physical or mental health conditions—often face fragmented and complex care. Digital tools offer scalable self-management solutions but may exacerbate inequities due to the digital divide and other factors. The aim of this scoping review is to map and summarise the existing literature on digital self-management tools used in MLTC, with a particular focus on how equity of access is considered in their development, implementation and evaluation.Methods and analysisScoping review methodology will be based on the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews and Arskey and O’Malley’s framework and will be reported in alignment with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Comprehensive search terms based on ‘multimorbidity’, ‘digital tools’ and ‘self-management’ have been developed. Peer-reviewed publications will be identified using MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Scopus, CINAHL and PubMed. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, with subsequent full text review also being performed in duplicate to ensure they meet the eligibility criteria. Discrepancies will be resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. Included studies will focus on digital tools for the self-management of MLTC in adults (≥18 years old) in any setting. Equity dimensions will include, but are not limited to, digital literacy, treatment burden, socioeconomic status, polypharmacy and access disparities.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this scoping review. The results of the scoping review will be published in an open access, peer-reviewed journal for wider dissemination. Additionally, findings will contribute to topic guides and mapping of a research networking event with key stakeholders (including patient and public involvement and engagement members, clinicians, researchers and industry) in MLTC, around the same subject area.

ObjectivesIntroducing primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing to cervical screening programmes means changes to the results women receive. We explored additional information needs among women undergoing HPV primary screening.DesignWomen were sent a postal questionnaire shortly after receiving their results and 6 and 12 months later. Each questionnaire asked if women had any unanswered questions about cervical screening or HPV testing. Free-text responses constituted the data. Themes were identified using content analysis.SettingNational Health Service (NHS) Cervical Screening Programme, England.Participants381 women who recorded one or more free-text responses.ResultsThe most common theme represented women’s emotional responses and attempts to understand their results. This theme was raised by 45% of women overall, but was as high as 59% in the HPV cleared group. General questions about the cause and epidemiology of HPV were raised by 38% of women and were more common among those testing HPV positive with normal cytology (52%). Questions about the purpose and procedure for HPV testing were most common among HPV-negative women (40%, compared with 16%–24% of the other results groups). Questions about future implications of test results were raised by 19% of women, and this theme was most common among those with persistent HPV.ConclusionsDespite provision of information alongside screening invitations, women can still have unanswered questions following receipt of their results. Details about the epidemiology of HPV and why cervical screening procedures are changing should be included with screening invitations. Some results groups may benefit from additional tailored information with their results letter.

Background Systematic reviews have identified effective strategies for increasing postal response rates to questionnaires; however, most studies have isolated single techniques, testing the effect of each one individually. Despite providing insight into explanatory mechanisms, this approach lacks ecological validity, given that multiple techniques are often combined in routine practice. Methods We used a two-armed parallel randomised controlled trial ( n  = 2702), nested within a cross-sectional health survey study, to evaluate whether using a pragmatic combination of behavioural science and evidenced-based techniques (e.g., personalisation, social norms messaging) in a study invitation letter increased response to the survey, when compared with a standard invitation letter. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. We tested this in a sample of women testing positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) at cervical cancer screening in England. Results Overall, 646 participants responded to the survey (response rate [RR] = 23.9%). Logistic regression revealed higher odds of response in the intervention arm ( n  = 357/1353, RR = 26.4%) compared with the control arm ( n  = 289/1349, RR = 21.4%), while adjusting for age, deprivation, clinical site, and clinical test result (aOR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.09–1.55). Conclusion Applying easy-to-implement behavioural science and evidence-based methods to routine invitation letters improved postal response to a health-related survey, whilst adjusting for demographic characteristics. Our findings provide support for the pragmatic adoption of combined techniques in routine research to increase response to postal surveys. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN15113095 . Registered 7 May 2019 – retrospectively registered.

Background Uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is high overall but there are disparities in uptake, particularly by ethnicity. Incentivising vaccination consent form return is a promising approach to increase vaccination uptake. As part of a randomised feasibility trial we qualitatively assessed the acceptability of increasing uptake of HPV vaccination by incentivising consent form return. Methods In the context of a two-arm, cluster randomised feasibility trial, qualitative free-text questionnaire responses were collected from adolescent girls ( n  = 181) and their parents ( n  = 61), assessing the acceptability of an incentive intervention to increase HPV vaccination consent form return. In the incentive intervention arm, girls who returned a signed consent form (regardless of whether consent was given or refused), had a 1-in-10 chance of winning a £50 shopping voucher. Telephone interviews were also conducted with members of staff from participating schools ( n  = 6), assessing the acceptability of the incentive. Data were analysed thematically. Results Girls and parents provided a mix of positive, negative and ambivalent responses about the use of the incentive to encourage HPV vaccination consent form return. Both girls and parents held misconceptions about the nature of the incentive, wrongly believing that the incentive was dependent on vaccination receipt rather than consent form return. School staff members also expressed a mix of opinions on the acceptability of the incentive, including perceptions of effectiveness and ethics. Conclusions The use of an incentive intervention to encourage the return of HPV vaccination consent forms was found to be moderately acceptable to those receiving and delivering the intervention, although a number of changes are required to improve this. In particular, improving communication about the nature of the incentive to reduce misconceptions is vital. These findings suggest that incentivising consent form return may be an acceptable means of improving HPV vaccination rates, should improvements be made. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry; ISRCTN72136061 , 26 September 2016, retrospectively registered.

The human papillomavirus (HPV) test has emerged as a significant improvement over cytology for primary cervical cancer screening. In Canada, provinces and territories are moving toward implementing HPV testing in cervical cancer screening programs. Although an abundance of research exists on the benefits of HPV-based screening, there is a dearth of research examining women's understanding of HPV testing. In other countries, failure to adequately address women's concerns about changes has disrupted the implementation of HPV-based screening. The aims of the multipart study described in this paper are to develop psychometrically valid measures of cervical cancer screening-related knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs; to examine the feasibility of a questionnaire examining psychosocial factors related to HPV-based screening; and to investigate psychosocial correlates of women's intentions to participate in HPV-based screening. We conducted a web-based survey (study 1) of Canadian women to assess the acceptability and feasibility of a questionnaire, including the validation of scales examining cervical cancer knowledge, HPV testing knowledge, HPV testing attitudes and beliefs, and HPV test self-sampling attitudes and beliefs. Preferences for cervical cancer screening were assessed using the best-worst scaling methodology. A second web-based survey (study 2) will be administered to a national sample of Canadian women between June 2022 and July 2022 using the validated scales. Differences in the knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and preferences of women who are currently either underscreened or adequately screened for cervical cancer will be examined through bivariate analyses. Multinomial logistic regression will be used to estimate the associations between psychosocial and sociodemographic factors and intentions to undergo HPV-based screening. Between October 2021 and November 2021, a total of 1230 participants completed the questionnaire in study 1, and 1027 (83.49%) responses were retained after data cleaning methods were applied. Feasibility was comparable with similar population-based surveys in terms of survey length, participant attrition, and the number of participants excluded after data cleaning. As of May 2022, analysis of study 1 is ongoing, and results are expected to be published in the summer of 2022. Data collection is expected to begin for study 2 in the summer of 2022. Results are expected to be published between late 2022 and early 2023. Findings will provide direction for Canadian public health authorities to align guidelines to address women's concerns and optimize the acceptability and uptake of HPV-based primary screening. Validated scales can be used by other researchers to improve and standardize the measurement of psychosocial factors affecting HPV test acceptability. Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles; conference presentations; and direct communication with researchers, clinicians, policy makers, media, and specialty organizations. DERR1-10.2196/38917.

AbstractObjectivesTo provide updated evidence about the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+) and cervical cancer after a negative human papillomavirus (HPV) test in primary cervical screening, by age group and test assay.DesignObservational study.SettingReal world data from the English HPV screening pilot’s first and second rounds (2013-16, follow-up to end of 2019).Participants1 341 584 women.InterventionsCervical screening with HPV testing or liquid based cytological testing (cytology or smear tests). Women screened with cytology were referred to colposcopy after high grade cytological abnormalities or after borderline or low grade abnormalities combined with a positive HPV triage test. Women screened with HPV testing who were positive were referred at baseline if their cytology triage test showed at least borderline abnormalities or after a retest (early recall) at 12 and 24 months if they had persistent abnormalities.Main outcome measuresDetection of CIN3+ and cervical cancer after a negative HPV test.ResultsFor women younger than 50 years, second round detection of CIN3+ in this study was significantly lower after a negative HPV screen in the first round than after cytology testing (1.21/1000 v 4.52/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.30), as was the risk of interval cervical cancer (1.31/100 000 v 2.90/100 000 woman years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.44, 0.23 to 0.84). Risk of an incident CIN3+ detected at the second screening round in the pilot five years after a negative HPV test was even lower in women older than 50 years, than in three years in women younger than 50 years (0.57/1000 v 1.21/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 0.46, 0.27 to 0.79). Women with negative HPV tests at early recall after a positive HPV screening test without cytological abnormalities had a higher detection rate of CIN3+ at the second routine recall than women who initially tested HPV negative (5.39/1000 v 1.21/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 3.27, 95% confidence interval 2.21 to 4.84). Detection after a negative result on a clinically validated APTIMA mRNA HPV test was similar to that after clinically validated cobas and RealTime DNA tests (for CIN3+ at the second round 1.32/1000 v 1.14/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 1.05, 0.73 to 1.50).ConclusionsThese data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used: to five years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older. The screening interval for HPV positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at three years.