ObjectiveFrom December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program commenced 5 yearly primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening; one of the first high-income countries to implement primary HPV screening. This study aimed to examine the psychosocial impact of self-reporting testing HPV positive in a sample of women screened since the renewal of the programme.MethodsWomen in Australia aged 25–74 years who reported participating in cervical screening since December 2017 were recruited through an online market research company to complete a cross-sectional survey. The primary outcomes were anxiety and general distress.Results1004 women completed the online survey; 80.9% reported testing HPV negative (HPV−), 6.5% reported testing HPV positive (HPV+) and 12.9% did not know/remember their test result. Women who reported testing HPV+ had significantly poorer psychological outcomes on a range of measures. Those who reported testing HPV+ had higher anxiety scores (53.03 vs 43.58 out of 80, p<0.001), showed more general distress (3.94 vs 2.52 out of 12, p=0.004), concern about their test result (5.02 vs 2.37, p<0.001), expressed greater distress about their test result (7.06 vs 4.74, p<0.001) and cancer worry (quite or very worried 35.4% vs 11.6%, p<0.001) than women who reported testing HPV−. Concern regarding test results was also significantly higher in women who did not know/remember their test result (3.20 vs 2.37, p<0.001) compared with women who reported testing HPV−. Women who reported testing HPV+ had greater knowledge of HPV (9.25 vs 6.62, p<0.001) and HPV testing (2.44 vs 1.30, p<0.001) than women who reported testing HPV−.ConclusionsReceipt of an HPV+ test result was associated with high levels of anxiety and distress, which reached clinical significance. Further work is needed to understand whether distress and concern could be reduced by ensuring all women receive high-quality standardised information with their results or by other interventions.

Background There is increasing recognition of the importance of addressing health literacy in patient decision aid (PtDA) development. Purpose An updated review as part of IPDAS 2.0 examined the extent to which PtDAs are designed to meet the needs of people with low health literacy/socially-disadvantaged populations. Data Sources Reference lists of Cochrane reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PtDAs (2014, 2017, and upcoming 2021 versions). Study Selection RCTs that assessed the impact of PtDAs on low health literacy or other socially-disadvantaged groups (i.e., ≥50% participants from socially-disadvantaged groups and/or subgroup analysis in socially-disadvantaged group/s). Data Extraction Two researchers independently extracted data into a standardized form including PtDA development and evaluation details. We searched online repositories and emailed authors to access PtDAs to verify grade reading level, understandability, and actionability. Data Synthesis Twenty-five of 213 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, illustrating that only 12% of studies addressed the needs of low health literacy or other socially-disadvantaged groups. Grade reading level was calculated in 8 of 25 studies (33%), which is recommended in previous IPDAS guidelines. We accessed and independently assessed 11 PtDAs. None were written at sixth-grade level or below. Ten PtDAs met the recommended threshold for understandability, but only 5 met the recommended threshold for actionability. We also conducted a post hoc subgroup meta-analysis and found that knowledge improvements after receiving a PtDA were greater in studies that reported using strategies to reduce cognitive demand in PtDA development compared with studies that did not (χ2 = 14.11, P = 0.0002, I2 = 92.9%). Limitations We were unable to access 13 of 24 PtDAs. Conclusions. Greater attention to health literacy and socially-disadvantaged populations is needed in the field of PtDAs to ensure equity in decision support.

Background The effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other shared decision-making (SDM) interventions for socially disadvantaged populations has not been well studied. Purpose To assess whether PtDAs and other SDM interventions improve outcomes or decrease health inequalities among socially disadvantaged populations and determine the critical features of successful interventions. Data Sources MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to October 2019. Cochrane systematic reviews on PtDAs. Study Selection Randomized controlled trials of PtDAs and SDM interventions that included socially disadvantaged populations. Data Extraction Independent double data extraction using a standardized form and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. Data Synthesis Twenty-five PtDA and 13 other SDM intervention trials met our inclusion criteria. Compared with usual care, PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference = 13.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.01, 18.82 [I2 = 96%]) and patient-clinician communication (relative risk = 1.62, 95% CI 1.42, 1.84 [I2 = 0%]). PtDAs reduced decisional conflict (mean difference = −9.59; 95% CI −18.94, −0.24 [I2 = 84%]) and the proportion undecided (relative risk = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28, 0.53 [I2 = 75%]). PtDAs did not affect anxiety (standardized mean difference = 0.02, 95% CI −0.22, 0.26 [I2 = 70%]). Only 1 trial looked at clinical outcomes (hemoglobin A1C). Five of the 12 PtDA studies that compared outcomes by disadvantaged standing found that outcomes improved more for socially disadvantaged participants. No evidence indicated which intervention characteristics were most effective. Results were similar for SDM intervention trials. Limitations Sixteen PtDA studies had an overall unclear risk of bias. Heterogeneity was high for most outcomes. Most studies only had short-term follow-up. Conclusions PtDAs led to better outcomes among socially disadvantaged populations but did not reduce health inequalities. We could not determine which intervention features were most effective. [Box: see text]

ObjectiveTo explore women’s experiences of the renewed National Cervical Screening Program in Australia from the perspective of women who have received different human papillomavirus (HPV) test results. Women aged 25 to 74 are now screened every 5 years with primary HPV screening.DesignQualitative interview study.SettingAustralia.ParticipantsWomen in Australia aged 25 to 74 who reported participating in cervical screening since December 2017, purposively sampled by test result (HPV positive, HPV negative and HPV status unknown).Methods26 interviews with women aged 25 to 74 were conducted and analysed thematically.ResultsThree main themes emerged: knowledge and attitudes about the programme changes, information dissemination, the meaning and responses to test results and the new cervical screening test (CST). Some women showed little awareness of the changes, but others understood that HPV is detected earlier than abnormal cells. Some expressed positive attitudes towards the CST and were not anxious about less frequent screening. Most women envisaged the changes would have minimal impact on their screening behaviour. Women mainly wanted more information about the changes and the possible results from the new CST. Overall women could recall their HPV results and understand the implications for future cervical screening. Anxiety about being at ‘increased risk’ was more apparent in women who were HPV positive without history of abnormal results.ConclusionsWomen show some understanding of HPV and the new CST, but more written and public communication about the changes and possible results are warranted. Efforts are needed to ensure that women who are HPV positive without history of abnormal results receive the information needed to alleviate anxiety.

No abstract