Feasibility and acceptability of telehealth and contactless delivery of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing for cervical screening with Maori and Pacific women in a COVID-19 outbreak in Aotearoa New Zealand.

AIM: To determine the feasibility and acceptability of a telehealth offer and contactless delivery of human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical screening self-test during the 2021 COVID-19 Level 4 lockdown in Auckland, New Zealand. METHODS: A small proof-of-concept study was undertaken to test telehealth approaches in never-screened, due or overdue Maori and Pacific women enrolled in a local Primary Health Organisation (PHO). Study invitation, active follow-up, nurse-led discussions, result notification and a post-test questionnaire were all delivered through telehealth. RESULTS: A sample of 197 eligible Maori and Pacific women were invited to take part, of which 86 women were successfully contacted. Sixty-six agreed to take part. Overall uptake was 61 samples returned (31.8%) and uptake of all contactable women was 70.9%. Six of the 61 HPV self-tests (9.8%) were positive, all for non 16/18 types, and were referred for cytology. Three had negative cytology results, and three with positive cytology results were referred for colposcopy. CONCLUSION: The offer of HPV self-testing during COVID-19 lockdown was both feasible and highly acceptable for Maori and Pacific women. Importantly, HPV self-testing via telehealth and mail-out, alongside other options, offers a potential pro-equity approach for addressing the impact of deferred screens due to COVID-19 and other longstanding coverage issues.

Maximising the acceptability of extended time intervals between screens in the NHS Cervical Screening Programme: An online experimental study.

OBJECTIVE: The NHS Cervical Screening Programme plans to increase the screening interval from 3 to 5 years for women aged 25-49 who test negative for human papillomavirus (HPV). This exploratory cross-sectional online survey tested the impact of different levels of information about the proposed change on acceptability of a longer interval. METHODS: Women aged 18-45 (n = 585) were individually randomised to one of three information exposure groups differing in the level of information provided about the screening interval change: (1) basic information; (2) basic information with additional detail about timeline of HPV infection; (3) as (2) but with the addition of a diagram. Acceptability of the change (favourable and unfavourable attitudes) was assessed post-exposure alongside HPV timeline beliefs. We used ANOVA and regression analyses to test for between-group differences. RESULTS: Women in Group 3 had higher scores on the favourable attitudes sub-scale compared with Group 1. Women in Groups 2 and 3 had more accurate timeline beliefs than those in Group 1. There were no between-group differences in unfavourable attitudes. After adjusting for demographic factors, a higher favourable attitudes score was independently predicted by being in Group 3 compared to Group 1, more accurate HPV timeline beliefs, and previous irregular or non-attendance at screening. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, acceptability of an increased screening interval was moderate, but providing women with information about the safety and rationale for this change may improve acceptability. In particular, communicating the long timeline from HPV exposure to cervical cancer may reassure women about the safety of the proposed changes.

Attitudes towards and knowledge about Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and the HPV vaccination in parents of teenage boys in the UK.

The incidence of cancers attributable to Human Papillomavirus (HPV) that affect males is on the rise. Currently in the UK teenage boys are not vaccinated against HPV while teenage girls are. The rationale for not vaccinating boys is that vaccinating girls should provide herd immunity to boys, however this does not protect men who have sex with men or men who have sex with unvaccinated women. The issue of whether to vaccinate boys or not is a controversial one with considerable lobbying taking place to change the existing policy. On one side of the debate are financial considerations while on the other side health equality is important. One avenue that has not been presented is the parental perspective. The current study uses a self-report questionnaire to explore what parents of teenage boys know about HPV and the vaccine and whether they want the vaccine for their sons. Only half of the parents had heard of HPV prior to completing the survey. Of those who had heard of HPV, knowledge about the health sequelae of HPV for men was poor relative to their knowledge about its impact on female health. Parents who would be willing to vaccinate their sons had higher levels of knowledge about HPV than those parents who would be unwilling or unsure. Irrespective of whether they had previously heard of HPV or not, once provided with a brief description of HPV, the majority of parents thought that boys should be offered the vaccination. There is a pressing need for public education about the potential impact of HPV on male health in order to facilitate uptake of the vaccine in the event of the vaccination programme being extended to men or to facilitate informed decision making about seeking the vaccine privately in the event that it isn't.