PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Nemec, Martin AU - Waller, Jo AU - Barnes, Jessica AU - Marlow, Laura A.V TI - Acceptability of extending HPV-based cervical screening intervals from 3 to 5 years: An interview study with women in England AID - 10.1101/2022.01.12.22269119 DP - 2022 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2022.01.12.22269119 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/12/2022.01.12.22269119.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/12/2022.01.12.22269119.full AB - Objectives The introduction of primary HPV testing in the NHS Cervical Screening Programme in England means the screening interval for 25-49-year-olds can be extended from 3 to 5 years. We explored women’s responses to the proposed interval extension.Methods We conducted semi-structured phone/video interviews with 22 women aged 25-49 years. Participants were selected to vary in age, socioeconomics, and screening history. We explored attitudes to the current 3-year interval, then acceptability of a 5-year interval. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis.Results Attitudes to the current 3-year interval varied; some wanted more frequent screening, believing cancer develops quickly. Some participants worried about the proposed change; others trusted it was evidence-based. Frequent questions concerned the rationale and safety of longer intervals, speed of cancer development, the possibility of HPV being missed or cell changes occurring between screens. Many participants felt reassured when the interval change was explained alongside the move to HPV primary screening, of which most had previously been unaware.Conclusions Communication of the interval change should be done in the context of broader information about HPV primary screening, emphasising that people who test negative for HPV are at lower risk of cell changes so can safely be screened every 5 years. The long time needed for HPV to develop into cervical cancer provides reassurance about safety, but it is important to be transparent that no screening test is perfect.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was commissioned by Public Health England (PHE, no grant number was given). MN and LM were funded by PHE. JB and JW are funded by Cancer Research UK (grant numbers: C7492/A17219 and C8162/A25356).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe 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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesData may be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.