The impact of delayed diagnosis and treatment due to COVID-19 on Australian thyroid cancer patients: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: The study aims to investigate the perceptions of patients with thyroid cancer on the potential impact of diagnosis and treatment delays during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: This study involved qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, analysed using the thematic framework analysis method and reported using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research. SETTING: Participants in the study were treated and/or managed at hospital sites across New South Wales and Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 17 patients with thyroid cancer were interviewed and included in the analysis (14 females and 3 males). RESULTS: The delays experienced by patients ranged from <3 months to >12 months. The patients reported about delays to diagnostic tests, delays to surgery and radioactive iodine treatment, perceived disease progression and, for some, the financial burden of choosing to go through private treatment to minimise the delay. Most patients also reported not wanting to experience delays any longer than they did, due to unease and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights an increased psychological burden in patients with thyroid cancer who experienced delayed diagnosis and/or treatment during COVID-19. The impacts experienced by patients during this time may be similar in the case of other unexpected delays and highlight the need for regular clinical review during delays to diagnosis or treatment.

Randomized Trial of Information for Older Women About Cessation of Breast Cancer Screening Invitations.

BACKGROUND: Older women receive no information about why Australia's breast screening program (BreastScreen) invitations cease after 74 years. We tested how providing older women with the rationale for breast screening cessation impacted informed choice (adequate knowledge; screening attitudes aligned with intention). METHODS: In a three-arm online randomized trial, eligible participants were females aged 70-74 years who had recently participated in breast screening (within 5 years), without personal breast cancer history, recruited through Qualtrics. Participants read a hypothetical scenario in which they received a BreastScreen letter reporting no abnormalities on their mammogram. They were randomized to receive the letter: (1) without any rationale for screening cessation (control); (2) with screening cessation rationale in printed-text form (e.g., downsides of screening outweigh the benefits after age 74); or (3) with screening cessation rationale presented in an animation video form. The primary outcome was informed choice about continuing/stopping breast screening beyond 74 years. RESULTS: A total of 376 participant responses were analyzed. Compared to controls (n = 122), intervention arm participants (text [n = 132] or animation [n = 122]) were more likely to make an informed choice (control 18.0%; text 32.6%, p = .010; animation 40.5%, p < .001). Intervention arm participants had more adequate knowledge (control 23.8%; text 59.8%, p < .001; animation 68.9%, p < .001), lower screening intentions (control 17.2%; text 36.4%, p < .001; animation 49.2%, p < .001), and fewer positive screening attitudes regarding screening for themselves in the animation arm, but not in the text arm (control 65.6%; text 51.5%, p = .023; animation 40.2%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Providing information to older women about the rationale for breast cancer screening cessation increased informed decision-making in a hypothetical scenario. This study is an important first step in improving messaging provided by national cancer screening providers direct to older adults. Further research is needed to assess the impact of different elements of the intervention and the impact of providing this information in clinical practice, with more diverse samples. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTRN12623000033640.

Lung cancer screening program factors that influence psychosocial outcomes: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer screening (LCS) programs are being designed and implemented globally. Early data suggests that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are influenced by program factors, but evidence synthesis is needed. This systematic review aimed to elucidate the impact of service-level factors on psychosocial outcomes to inform optimal LCS program design and future implementation. METHODS: Four databases were searched from inception to July 2023. Inclusion criteria were full-text articles published in English that reported an association between any program factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was appraised, and findings were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Thirty-two articles were included; 29 studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were RCT (n = 3), pre-post (n = 6), cross-sectional (n = 12), mixed-methods (n = 1), and qualitative (n = 10) studies, and conducted primarily in the USA (n = 25). Findings suggested that targeted interventions can improve smoking-related or decisional psychosocial outcomes (e.g., smoking cessation interventions increase readiness/motivation to quit) but impacts of interventions on other psychological outcomes were varied. There was limited evidence reporting association between service delivery components and psychological outcomes, and results suggested moderation by individual aspects (e.g., expectation of results, baseline anxiety). Opportunities for discussion were key in reducing psychological harm. CONCLUSIONS: Certain program factors are reportedly associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, but study heterogeneity and quality necessitate more real-world studies. Future work should examine (a) implementation of targeted interventions and high-value discussion during LCS, and (b) optimal methods and timing of risk and result communication, to improve psychosocial outcomes while reducing time burden for clinicians.

Screening for cancer beyond recommended upper age limits: views and experiences of older people.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, screening programmes and clinical practice guidelines recommend when older adults should stop cancer screening using upper age limits, but it is unknown how older adults view these recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To examine older adults' views and experiences about continuing or stopping cancer screening beyond the recommended upper age limit for breast, cervical, prostate and bowel cancer. DESIGN: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Australia, telephone. SUBJECTS: A total of 29 community-dwelling older adults (≥70-years); recruited from organisation newsletters, mailing lists and Facebook advertisements. METHODS: Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Firstly, older adults were on a spectrum between trusting recommendations and actively deciding about cancer screening, with some who were uncertain. Secondly, participants reported limited in-depth discussions with health professionals about cancer screening. In primary care, discussions were focused on checking they were up to date with screening or going over results. Discussions mostly only occurred if older adults initiated themselves. Finally, participants had a socially- and self-constructed understanding of screening recommendations and potential outcomes. Perceived reasons for upper age limits were cost, reduced cancer risk or ageism. Risks of screening were understood in relation to their own social experiences (e.g. shared stories about friends with adverse outcomes of cancer treatment or conversations with friends/family about controversy around prostate screening). CONCLUSIONS: Direct-to-patient information and clinician support may help improve communication about the changing benefit to harm ratio of cancer screening with increasing age and increase understanding about the rationale for an upper age limit for cancer screening programmes.

Clinicians' Perspective on Implementing Virtual Hospital Care for Low Back Pain: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Alternate "hospital avoidance" models of care are required to manage the increasing demand for acute inpatient beds. There is currently a knowledge gap regarding the perspectives of hospital clinicians on barriers and facilitators to a transition to virtual care for low back pain. We plan to implement a virtual hospital model of care called "Back@Home" and use qualitative interviews with stakeholders to develop and refine the model. OBJECTIVE: We aim to explore clinicians' perspectives on a virtual hospital model of care for back pain (Back@Home) and identify barriers to and enablers of successful implementation of this model of care. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 purposively sampled clinicians involved in the delivery of acute back pain care at 3 metropolitan hospitals. Interview data were analyzed using the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: A total of 10 Theoretical Domains Framework domains were identified as important in understanding barriers and enablers to implementing virtual hospital care for musculoskeletal back pain. Key barriers to virtual hospital care included patient access to videoconferencing and reliable internet, language barriers, and difficulty building rapport. Barriers to avoiding admission included patient expectations, social isolation, comorbidities, and medicolegal concerns. Conversely, enablers of implementing a virtual hospital model of care included increased health care resource efficiency, clinician familiarity with telehealth, as well as a perceived reduction in overmedicalization and infection risk. CONCLUSIONS: The successful implementation of Back@Home relies on key stakeholder buy-in. Addressing barriers to implementation and building on enablers is crucial to clinicians' adoption of this model of care. Based on clinicians' input, the Back@Home model of care will incorporate the loan of internet-enabled devices, health care interpreters, and written resources translated into community languages to facilitate more equitable access to care for marginalized groups.

Factors Influencing Primary Care Practitioners' Cancer Screening Recommendations for Older Adults: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Primary care practitioners (PCPs) play a key role in cancer screening decisions for older adults (≥ 65 years), but recommendations vary by cancer type and jurisdiction. PURPOSE: To examine the factors influencing PCPs' recommendations for breast, cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancer screening for older adults. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Pre-Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, searched from 1 January 2000 to July 2021, and citation searching in July 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Assessed factors influencing PCPs' breast, prostate, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening decisions for older adults' (defined either as ≥ 65 years or < 10-year life expectancy). DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently conducted data extraction and quality appraisal. Decisions were crosschecked and discussed where necessary. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 1926 records, 30 studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty were quantitative, nine were qualitative, and one used a mixed method design. Twenty-nine were conducted in the USA, and one in the UK. Factors were synthesized into six categories: patient demographic characteristics, patient health characteristics, patient and clinician psycho-social factors, clinician characteristics, and health system factors. Patient preference was most reported as influential across both quantitative and qualitative studies. Age, health status, and life expectancy were also commonly influential, but PCPs held nuanced views about life expectancy. Weighing benefits/harms was also commonly reported with variation across cancer screening types. Other factors included patient screening history, clinician attitudes/personal experiences, patient/provider relationship, guidelines, reminders, and time. LIMITATIONS: We could not conduct a meta-analysis due to variability in study designs and measurement. The vast majority of included studies were conducted in the USA. CONCLUSIONS: Although PCPs play a role in individualizing cancer screening for older adults, multi-level interventions are needed to improve these decisions. Decision support should continue to be developed and implemented to support informed choice for older adults and assist PCPs to consistently provide evidence-based recommendations. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021268219. FUNDING SOURCE: NHMRC APP1113532.

"What do I think about implementing lung cancer screening? It all depends on how." Acceptability and feasibility of lung cancer screening in Australia: The view of key stakeholders about health system factors.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide. Although international trials demonstrate that targeted screening using low dose computed tomography (LDCT) significantly reduces lung cancer mortality, implementation of screening in the high-risk population presents complex health system challenges that need to be thoroughly understood to support policy change. AIM: To elicit health care providers' and policymakers' views about the acceptability and feasibility of lung cancer screening (LCS) and barriers and enablers to implementation in the Australian setting. METHODS: We conducted 24 focus groups and three interviews (22 focus groups and all interviews online) in 2021 with 84 health professionals, researchers, and current cancer screening program managers and policy makers across all Australian states and territories. Focus groups included a structured presentation about lung cancer and screening and lasted approximately one hour each. A qualitative approach to analysis was used to map topics to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Nearly all participants considered LCS to be acceptable and feasible but identified a wide range of implementation challenges. Topics (five specific to health systems and five cross-cutting with participant factors) identified were mapped to CFIR constructs, of which 'readiness for implementation', 'planning' and 'executing' were most salient. Health system factor topics included delivery of the LCS program, cost, workforce considerations, quality assurance and complexity of health systems. Participants strongly advocated for streamlined referral processes. Practical strategies to address equity and access, such as using mobile screening vans, were emphasised. CONCLUSIONS: Key stakeholders readily identified the complex challenges associated with the acceptability and feasibility of LCS in Australia. The barriers and facilitators across health system and cross-cutting topics were clearly elicited. These findings are highly relevant to the scoping of a national LCS program by the Australian Government and a subsequent recommendation for implementation.

"I haven't had that information, even though I think I'm really well-informed about most things": a qualitative focus group study on Australian women's understanding and views of potentially modifiable risk factors for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Building health literacy about potentially modifiable risk factors for breast cancer may help to empower women to make more informed decisions about their breast health; however there has been limited qualitative research on this topic. This study aimed to explore current knowledge, understanding and experience of potentially modifiable risk factors for breast cancer, and views on current and future communication strategies for this information and related interventions. METHODS: Qualitative study using online focus groups via Zoom in October-November 2022. A diverse sample of women from the Australian community aged 40-74 years were recruited. RESULTS: Fifty-one women from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds took part in nine focus groups. General knowledge of risk factors for breast cancer in the community is limited, particularly in relation to modifiable factors such as alcohol consumption and postmenopausal obesity, with many women describing feelings of 'shock' following this information. Women overwhelming believed that information on modifiable risk factors for breast cancer should be communicated more widely, however communication preferences for receiving this information varied. There was a strong preference amongst the women for a cascade of information which they believed may then help target greater number of women of all ages and backgrounds. Despite worry about long-term compliance, women also supported various lifestyle interventions which may help them and other women to reduce their overall risk. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study highlight the need for more widespread community communication and education about risk factors for breast, in particular potentially modifiable risk factors such as alcohol consumption and postmenopausal obesity. As breast screening programs in Australia and globally begin to evaluate the potential for risk-related screening this will provide an additional context for primary prevention, hence planning of messaging and piloting of lifestyle-related prevention strategies in breast cancer is needed now. Gaining an understanding of women's preferences for communication and forms of interventions is vital to ensure their engagement.

Lung cancer screening: the hidden public health emergency.

Lung cancer causes nearly 2 million deaths per year worldwide, and cases continue to rise. Most lung cancer is diagnosed at late, incurable stages, and the five-year survival is a fraction of that for other common cancers, including breast, prostate, melanoma and colorectal cancer. Lung cancer screening (LCS) in high-risk populations using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could potentially save thousands of lives per year by shifting the stage at diagnosis to early curable disease. Although an LCS program has not yet started in Australia, two trials have provided local data on the feasibility, selection criteria and outcomes. A government-commissioned report has detailed a potential national program, and Federal Budget funding has been committed to early feasibility projects that include population-specific consultations with, for example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities who are at higher risk of lung cancer due to high smoking rates. Effective recruitment to LCS, embedded smoking cessation and the provision of subsequent lung cancer care to all at-risk Australians remain key priorities for any future LCS program.

Education messages and strategies to inform the public, potential screening candidates and healthcare providers about lung cancer screening: A systematic review.

International lung cancer screening (LCS) trials, using low-dose computed tomography, have demonstrated clinical effectiveness in reducing mortality from lung cancer. This systematic review aims to synthesise the key messages and strategies that could be successful in increasing awareness and knowledge of LCS, and ultimately increase uptake of screening. Studies were identified via relevant database searches up to January 2022. Two authors evaluated eligible studies, extracted and crosschecked data, and assessed quality. Results were synthesised narratively. Of 3205 titles identified, 116 full text articles were reviewed and 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty studies were conducted in the United States. While the study findings were heterogenous, key messages mentioned across multiple studies were about: provision of information on LCS and the recommendations for LCS (n = 8); benefits and harms of LCS (n = 6); cost of LCS and insurance coverage for participants (n = 6) and eligibility criteria (n = 5). To increase knowledge and awareness, evidence from awareness campaigns suggests that presenting information about eligibility and the benefits and harms of screening, may increase screening intention and uptake. Evidence from behavioural studies suggests that campaigns supporting engagement with platforms such as educational videos and digital awareness campaigns might be most effective. Group based learning appears to be most suited to increasing health professionals' knowledge. This systematic review found a lack of consistent evidence to demonstrate which strategies are most effective for increasing participant healthcare professional and community awareness and education about LCS.

An education resource for human papillomavirus oropharyngeal cancer patients: think-aloud interviews.

PURPOSE: The human papillomavirus (HPV) is well recognised as a factor in developing oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). A booklet for HPV-OPC patients aimed to deliver evidence-based messages in everyday language, in a way to minimise negative psychological impacts on patients. Our study explored the suitability of the booklet for use. METHODS: Participants were recruited through social media and interviewed via Zoom. Participants were shown the booklet and a think-aloud method elicited real-time reactions to the content. Responses were analysed for each section and coded as either for or against for content, with other responses thematically analysed using NVivo. RESULTS: The sample comprised 24 participants: patients (n = 19) who completed treatment for HPV-OPC and partners of survivors of HPV-OPC (n = 5). All participants found the booklet useful, and most wished the resource had been available previously. Some indicated the information was new to them. The majority agreed the booklet would be best delivered by their specialist at point of diagnosis and would be a useful resource for friends and family. Most participants gave feedback on improvements to the booklet in terms of comprehension and design. Overall, participants found the content easy to understand. Most participants found that it helped to reduce shame and stigma associated with HPV as a sexually transmitted infection. CONCLUSION: An evidence-based booklet for HPV-OPC patients and their partners is acceptable. Implementation may be feasible in routine clinical practice, specifically at time of diagnosis. Adapting the content will help optimise the efficacy of the booklet in facilitating communication between all stakeholders.

Reasons that clinicians in Australia offer cervical screening outside guidelines for frequency, age and co-testing.

Objectives and importance of study: Changing cancer screening programs is notoriously difficult and may be influenced by clinicians' willingness to adhere to new guidelines. Our objective was to investigate clinicians' adherence to revised cervical screening guidelines and to identify any reasons for testing outside the revised guidelines. METHODS: Australian clinicians involved in cervical screening and treating women with cervical abnormalities were invited to complete a cross-sectional online survey between September 2019 and February 2020. We measured self-reported adherence to cervical screening guidelines for three common scenarios and analysed free-text reasons for offering tests contrary to guidelines using content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 607 clinicians (283 general practitioners [GPs], and 324 obstetricians and gynaecologists [O&Gs]) were eligible and participated. Of these, 37.8% of GPs and 43.8% of O&Gs would provide testing more frequently than indicated by guidelines, but recognised the need for patients to be aware of the additional cost and for guidelines to be explained; 13.9% of GPs and 10.2% of O&Gs would screen women at a younger age than indicated due to patient request, patient/family history and the need for patient reassurance; and 11.4% of GPs and 23.6% of O&Gs would perform a HPV and cytology co-test when not indicated, mainly as a result of a mistake or lack of familiarity with guidelines, patient/family history and patient reassurance. Patient request for testing was a reason for testing outside the guidelines with regard to frequency of testing, age of testing and co-testing. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that it is likely cervical screening outside guidelines is occurring in Australia. As patients often request these tests, strategies to reduce screening outside the guidelines should include ensuring that women are aware of the financial implications and the reasons for the updated guidelines.

General practitioners' views and experiences of communicating with older people about cancer screening: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Older adults should be supported to make informed decisions about cancer screening. However, it is unknown how general practitioners (GPs) in Australia communicate about cancer screening with older people. AIM: To investigate GPs' views and experiences of communicating about cancer screening (breast, cervical, prostate, and bowel) with older people (≥70 years). DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews, Australia. METHOD: Interviews were conducted with GPs practising in Australia (n = 28), recruited through practice-based research networks, primary health networks, social media, and email invitation. Interviews were audio-recorded and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Findings across GPs were organized into 3 themes: (i) varied motivation to initiate cancer screening discussions; some GPs reported that they only initiated screening within recommended ages (<75 years), others described initiating discussions beyond recommended ages, and some experienced older patient-initiated discussions; (ii) GPs described the role they played in providing screening information, whereby detailed discussions about the benefits/risks of prostate screening were more likely than other nationally funded screening types (breast, cervical, and bowel); however, some GPs had limited knowledge of recommendations and found it challenging to explain why screening recommendations have upper ages; (iii) GPs reported providing tailored advice and discussion based on personal patient preferences, overall health/function, risk of cancer, and previous screening. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to support conversations between GPs and older people about the potential benefits and harms of screening in older age and rationale for upper age limits to screening programmes may be helpful. Further research in this area is needed.

Motivation is not enough: A qualitative study of lung cancer screening uptake in Australia to inform future implementation.

INTRODUCTION: Participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) trials and real-world programs is low, with many people at high-risk for lung cancer opting out of baseline screening after registering interest. We aimed to identify the potential drivers of participation in LCS in the Australian setting, to inform future implementation. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with individuals at high-risk of lung cancer who were eligible for screening and who had either participated ('screeners') or declined to participate ('decliners') in the International Lung Screening Trial from two Australian sites. Interview guide development was informed by the Precaution Adoption Process Model. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using the COM-B model of behaviour to explore capability, opportunity and motivation related to screening behaviour. RESULTS: Thirty-nine participants were interviewed (25 screeners; 14 decliners). Motivation to participate in screening was high in both groups driven by the lived experience of lung cancer and a belief that screening is valuable, however decliners unlike their screening counterparts reported low self-efficacy. Decliners in our study reported challenges in capability including ability to attend and in knowledge and understanding. Decliners also reported challenges related to physical and social opportunity, in particular location as a barrier and lack of family support to attend screening. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that motivation alone may not be sufficient to change behaviour related to screening participation, unless capability and opportunity are also considered. Focusing strategies on barriers related to capability and opportunity such as online/telephone support, mobile screening programs and financial assistance for screeners may better enhance screening participation. Providing funding for clinicians to support individuals in decision-making and belief in self-efficacy may foster motivation. Targeting interventions that connect eligible individuals with the LCS program will be crucial for successful implementation.

Assessing Information Available for Health Professionals and Potential Participants on Lung Cancer Screening Program Websites: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated recommendations for lung cancer screening in 2021, adjusting the age of screening to 50 years (from 55 years) and reducing the number of pack-years used to estimate total firsthand cigarette smoke exposure to 20 (from 30). With many individuals using the internet to find health care information, it is important to understand what information is available for individuals contemplating lung cancer screening. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the eligibility criteria and information available on lung cancer screening program websites for both health professionals and potential screening participants. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional analysis of 151 lung cancer screening program websites of academic (n=76) and community medical centers (n=75) in the United States with information for health professionals and potential screening participants was conducted in March 2021. Presentation of eligibility criteria for potential screening participants and presence of information available specific to health professionals about lung cancer screening were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included presentation of information about cost and smoking cessation, inclusion of an online risk assessment tool, mention of any clinical guidelines, and use of multimedia to present information. RESULTS: Eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening was included in nearly all 151 websites (n=142, 94%), as well as age range (n=139, 92.1%) and smoking history (n=141, 93.4%). Age was only consistent with the latest recommendations in 14.5% (n=22) of websites, and no websites had updated smoking history. Half the websites (n=76, 50.3%) mentioned screening costs as related to the type of insurance held. A total of 23 (15.2%) websites featured an online assessment tool to determine eligibility. The same proportion (n=23, 15.2%) hosted information specifically for health professionals. In total, 44 (29.1%) websites referred to smoking cessation, and 46 (30.5%) websites used multimedia to present information, such as short videos or podcasts. CONCLUSIONS: Most websites of US lung cancer screening programs provide information about eligibility criteria, but this is not consistent and has not been updated across all websites following the latest USPSTF recommendations. Online resources require updating to present standardized information that is accessible for all.

COVID-19 Vaccine Misperceptions in a Community Sample of Adults Aged 18-49 Years in Australia.

Central to a successful population vaccination program is high uptake of vaccines. However, COVID-19 vaccine uptake may be impeded by beliefs based on misinformation. We sought to understand the prevalence and nature of misbeliefs about COVID-19 vaccines, and identify associated factors, shortly after commencement of Australia's national vaccine rollout. A cross-sectional survey was administered to unvaccinated young adults (n = 2050) in Australia aged 18-49 years (mean age 33 years), 13 July-21 August 2021. This sample was previously under-represented in COVID-19 research but shown to have less willingness to vaccinate. Two thirds of participants agreed with at least one misbelief item. Misperceptions about COVID-19 vaccines were found to be significantly associated with lower health literacy, less knowledge about vaccines, lower perceived personal risk of COVID-19, greater endorsement of conspiracy beliefs, and lower confidence and trust in government and scientific institutions. Misbeliefs were more common in participants with less educational attainment, in younger age groups, and in males, as per previous research. Understanding determinants and barriers to vaccination uptake, such as knowledge and beliefs based on misinformation, can help to shape effective public health communication and inform debunking efforts at this critical time and in the future.

Physiotherapists' attitudes, views, and beliefs about Choosing Wisely recommendations: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Explore physiotherapists' attitudes, views, and beliefs towards the Australian Physiotherapy Association's (APA) Choosing Wisely recommendations. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with physiotherapists who were registered to practise in Australia. We purposively recruited participants with different demographics, clinical backgrounds, and years of experience to achieve diversity in views and opinions. Interviews explored barriers and facilitators to adopting the APA's Choosing Wisely recommendations, and strategies to increase adoption. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: We interviewed 19 participants (79.2% of 26 who expressed interest to be interviewed). Mean (SD) age of participants was 33.4 (11.6), mean (SD) years of experience was 10 (11.4), 90% were male (n = 17) and 53% worked in private practice (n = 10). Most participants were slightly (42.1%, n = 8) or at least moderately familiar (42.1%, n = 8) with the recommendations. Barriers to adopting the recommendations included 1) clinicians' beliefs, experience, and knowledge, 2) patients' clinical presentation, their beliefs, and expectations, 3) workplace demands and culture, and 4) vague and restrictive language, and lack of awareness. Facilitators to adopting the recommendations included 1) physiotherapists' beliefs and practise patterns, 2) organisational support, and 3) clear and appropriate recommendations. Suggested strategies to increase adoption of the recommendations were 1) interventions targeting clinicians, 2) amendments to the recommendations and 3) increased awareness and access to the recommendations. CONCLUSION: These findings will inform the development and dissemination of future Choosing Wisely recommendations, and development of strategies to replace low-value physiotherapy with high-value physiotherapy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Psychosocial impact of testing human papillomavirus positive in Australia's human papillomavirus-based cervical screening program: A cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of self-reported human papillomavirus (HPV) test result (HPV negative, HPV positive, HPV result unknown) on a range of psychosocial outcomes. METHODS: Women and other people with a cervix in Australia aged 25-74 years who reported having participated in cervical screening since December 2017 were recruited through Facebook and Instagram to complete an online survey. The primary outcome measures were anxiety, emotional distress, and general distress. RESULTS: Nine hundred fifteen participants completed the online survey; 73.2% reported testing HPV negative ('HPV-'), 15% reported testing HPV positive ('HPV+') and 11.8% reported that they did not know/remember their test result ('HPV unknown'). Compared to participants testing HPV-, participants testing HPV+ had higher mean anxiety (41.67 vs. 37.08, p < 0.001) and emotional distress scores (11.88 vs. 7.71, p < 0.001). Concern about test result (34.3% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001), perceived risk compared to average women (55.4% vs. 14.1%, p < 0.001), and cancer worry (27.8% vs. 5.9%, p < 0.001) were also greater among HPV+ participants than participants testing HPV-. Participants testing HPV+ felt less reassured about their screening result than participants testing HPV- (16% vs. 75.1%, p < 0.001). Participants testing HPV+ had greater knowledge of HPV (11.96 vs. 10.36 out of 16, p < 0.001) and HPV testing (3.94 vs 3.28 out of 5, p < 0.001) than participants who reported testing HPV-. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated levels of anxiety and emotional distress were found in those testing HPV+ compared with those testing HPV-. Future research should examine what strategies should be used to deliver test results and what additional information is provided, in order to alleviate anxiety among individuals testing HPV+.

Understanding women's choices for management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 (CIN2): Qualitative analysis of a randomised experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 (CIN2) would allow time for most cases to regress naturally and in turn avoid potentially unnecessary and harmful treatment. AIM: To determine reasons for choosing active surveillance over surgery among women given a hypothetical diagnosis of CIN2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women residing in Australia aged 25-40 years with no prior diagnosis of cervical cancer, cervical abnormality CIN2 or above, and/or previous hysterectomy, were randomised to one of four identical hypothetical scenarios of testing human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive: high-grade cytology and a diagnosis of CIN2 that used alternate terminology to describe resolution of abnormal cells and/or inclusion of an overtreatment statement. Participants selected active surveillance or surgery after viewing the scenario and free-text reason/s for their choice were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Of the 1638 women randomised, 79% (n = 1293) opted for active surveillance. The most common reasons for choosing active surveillance included concerns about surgery and associated risks, preferring to 'wait and see', trusting the doctor's recommendations and having an emotional response toward surgery. For women who chose surgery, being risk-averse, addressing the issue straight away and perceiving surgery to be the better option for them were the most common themes identified. CONCLUSION: When presented with balanced information on the benefits and harms of different management options for CIN2 and given a choice, most women in this hypothetical situation chose active surveillance over surgery. Addressing women's concerns about active surveillance may open up the possibility that if deemed safe, it could be an acceptable alternative for women.