Testing key messages about extending cervical screening intervals.
Laura A V Marlow, Martin Nemec, Jessica Barnes and 1 others
PMID 35440375WHAT IT FOUND
Women were more likely to report 5-year cervical screening as acceptable after messages about safety, accuracy, or slow cell changes.
The speed message reached 63% versus 43% for announcements alone.
Key findings
01Women who saw one additional message reported higher acceptability of 5-year screening than those who saw only announcement messages, with acceptability ranging from 47% to 63% versus 43% in the control group.
02Among control-group women who later saw all five messages, reported acceptability increased from 43% (205/472) to 66% (293/447), and the paper reports this change was statistically significant.
03After all five messages, 28% (809/2931) still found 5-year screening unacceptable, and women with previous abnormal cells were more likely to do so (39% versus 28%).
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample came from an online research panel and was not representative of all women aged 25-49 in England; participants were less likely to be working and more likely to be married than the population. All participants, including the control group, saw announcement messages about HPV testing and the interval change, so the study cannot say what would happen if women received no additional information. Acceptability was measured prospectively for a future change, not during real implementation, and may change as women become used to the new interval. The outcome was self-reported acceptability, not actual screening attendance, test results, or cancer outcomes. After adjustment for knowledge and timeline understanding, confidence intervals widened and many message groups were no longer significantly different from the control group.
Declared interests
The work was commissioned by Public Health England. Some authors were partially funded by Public Health England and Cancer Research UK, and others were fully funded by Cancer Research UK.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that these messages will improve actual screening attendance or that a 5-year interval is clinically safe. The study measured reported acceptability of a proposed change, not attendance or cancer outcomes, and after adjustment for knowledge and timeline many message differences were no longer statistically significant.