Testing key messages about extending cervical screening intervals

Abstract

ObjectivesWe tested the impact of different messages about the rationale for extended cervical screening intervals on acceptability of an extension. MethodsWomen in England aged 25–49 years (n = 2931) were randomised to a control group or one of 5 groups given different messages about extending cervical screening intervals from 3 to 5 years. Outcome measures were general acceptability and six components from the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). ResultsThe groups who saw additional messages (47–63%) were more likely to find the change acceptable than controls (43%). Messages about interval safety, test accuracy and speed of cell changes resulted in more positive affective-attitudes, higher ethicality beliefs, a better understanding of the reasons for extended intervals and greater belief in the safety of 5-year intervals. Being up-to-date with screening and previous abnormal results were associated with finding 5-yearly screening unacceptable. ConclusionsEmphasising the slow development of cell changes following an HPV negative result and the safety of longer intervals, alongside the accuracy of HPV primary screening is important. Practical implicationsCampaigns explaining the rationale for extended cervical screening intervals are likely to improve acceptability. Though women who feel at increased risk, may remain worried even when the rationale is explained.