ABSTRACT
Objectives We tested the impact of different messages about the rationale for extended screening intervals on acceptability of an extension.
Methods Women in England aged 25-49 years (n=2931) were randomised to read different messages about extending intervals from 3 to 5 years. Outcome measures were general acceptability and six components from the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA).
Results The control group were less likely to find the change acceptable (43%) than the groups who saw additional messages (47-63%). Women who saw messages about interval safety, test accuracy or the speed of cell changes had more positive affective attitudes, higher ethicality beliefs, a better understanding of the reasons for the interval change and were more likely to believe that 5-year intervals would be safe. Being up-to-date with screening and previous abnormal results were associated with finding 5-yearly screening unacceptable.
Conclusions Emphasising the slow development of cell changes following an HPV negative result and the safety of longer intervals, alongside messages about the accuracy of HPV primary screening is important.
Practical implications Campaigns explaining the rationale for increased screening intervals are likely to improve acceptability. Though some women who feel at increased risk, may remain worried even when the rationale is explained.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was commissioned by Public Health England (PHE, no grant number was given). MN and LM were partially funded by PHE for the duration of the project and receive funding from Cancer Research UK (C7492/A17219). JW and JB were fully funded by Cancer Research UK (C7492/A17219 and C8162/A25356).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the Kings College London ethics committee (LRS-19/20-19298 and MOD-20/21-19298).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The Data and syntax that correspond with the analyses reported will be available on Open Science Framework following peer review.
