A Decision Aid for Patients Considering Surgery for Sciatica: Codesign and User-Testing With Patients and Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Surgery can help patients with leg pain caused by sciatica recover faster, but by 12 months outcomes are similar to nonsurgical management. For many the decision to have surgery may require reflection, and patient decision aids are an evidence-based clinical tool that can help guide patients through this decision. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and refine a decision aid for patients with sciatica who are deciding whether to have surgery or 'wait and see' (i.e., try nonsurgical management first). DESIGN: Semistructured interviews with think-aloud user-testing protocol. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty clinicians and 20 patients with lived experience of low back pain or sciatica. OUTCOME MEASURES: Items from Technology Acceptance Model, Preparation for Decision Making Scale and Decision Quality Instrument for Herniated Disc 2.0 (knowledge instrument). METHODS: The prototype integrated relevant research with working group perspectives, decision aid standards and health literacy guidelines. The research team refined the prototype through seven rounds of user-testing, which involved discussing user-testing feedback and implementing changes before progressing to the next round. RESULTS: As a result of working group feedback, the decision aid was divided into sections: before, during and after a visit to the surgeon. Across all rounds of user-testing, clinicians rated the resource 5.9/7 (SD = 1.0) for perceived usefulness, and 6.0/7 for perceived ease of use (SD = 0.8). Patients reported the decision aid was easy to understand, on average correctly answering 3.4/5 knowledge questions (SD = 1.2) about surgery for sciatica. The grade reading score for the website was 9.0. Patients scored highly on preparation for decision-making (4.4/5, SD = 0.7), suggesting strong potential to empower patients. Interview feedback showed that patients and clinicians felt the decision aid would encourage question-asking and help patients reflect on personal values. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians found the decision aid acceptable, patients found it was easy to understand and both groups felt it would empower patients to actively engage in their care and come to an informed decision that aligned with personal values. Input from the working group and user-testing was crucial for ensuring that the decision aid met patient and clinician needs. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and clinicians contributed to prototype development via the working group.

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.

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.

Assessing and Understanding Reactance, Self-Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation and Information Conflict in Reaction to Overdiagnosis in Mammography Screening: Scale Development and Preliminary Validation.

PURPOSE: Overdiagnosis is a concept central to making informed breast cancer screening decisions, and yet some people may react to overdiagnosis with doubt and skepticism. The present research assessed 4 related reactions to overdiagnosis: reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, and source derogation (REDS). The degree to which the concept of overdiagnosis conflicts with participants' prior beliefs and health messages (information conflict) was also assessed as a potential antecedent of REDS. We developed a scale to assess these reactions, evaluated how those reactions are related, and identified their potential implications for screening decision making. METHODS: Female participants aged 39 to 49 years read information about overdiagnosis in mammography screening and completed survey questions assessing their reactions to that information. We used a multidimensional theoretical framework to assess dimensionality and overall domain-specific internal consistency of the REDS and Information Conflict questions. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed using data randomly split into a training set and test set. Correlations between REDS, screening intentions, and other outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Five-hundred twenty-five participants completed an online survey. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified that Reactance, Self Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation, and Information Conflict represent unique constructs. A reduced 20-item scale was created by selecting 4 items per construct, which showed good model fit. Reactance, Disbelief, and Source Derogation were associated with lower intent to use information about overdiagnosis in decision making and the belief that informing people about overdiagnosis is unimportant. CONCLUSIONS: REDS and Information Conflict are distinct but correlated constructs that are common reactions to overdiagnosis. Some of these reactions may have negative implications for making informed screening decisions. HIGHLIGHTS: Overdiagnosis is a concept central to making informed breast cancer screening decisions, and yet when provided information about overdiagnosis, some people are skeptical.This research developed a measure that assessed different ways in which people might express skepticism about overdiagnosis (reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, source derogation) and also the perception that overdiagnosis conflicts with prior knowledge and health messages (information conflict).These different reactions are distinct but correlated and are common reactions when people learn about overdiagnosis.Reactance, disbelief, and source derogation are associated with lower intent to use information about overdiagnosis in decision making as well as the belief that informing people about overdiagnosis is unimportant.

Psychosocial outcomes and health service use after notifying women participating in population breast screening when they have dense breasts: a BreastScreen Queensland randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Robust evidence regarding the benefits and harms of notifying Australian women when routine breast screening identifies that they have dense breasts is needed for informing future mammography population screening practice and policy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the psychosocial and health services use effects of notifying women participating in population-based breast cancer screening that they have dense breasts; to examine whether the mode of communicating this information about its implications (print, online formats) influences these effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study population comprises women aged 40 years or older who attend BreastScreen Queensland Sunshine Coast services for mammographic screening and are found to have dense breasts (BI-RADS density C or D). The randomised controlled trial includes three arms (952 women each): standard BreastScreen care (no notification of breast density; control arm); notification of dense breasts in screening results letter and print health literacy-sensitive information (intervention arm 1) or a link or QR code to online video-based health literacy-sensitive information (intervention arm 2). Baseline demographic data will be obtained from BreastScreen Queensland. Outcomes data will be collected in questionnaires at baseline and eight weeks, twelve months, and 27 months after breast screening. Primary outcomes will be psychological outcomes and health service use; secondary outcomes will be supplemental screening outcomes, cancer worry, perceived breast cancer risk, knowledge about breast density, future mammographic screening intentions, and acceptability of notification about dense breasts. ETHICS APPROVAL: Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service Ethics Committee (HREC/2023/QGC/89770); Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service Research Governance and Development (SSA/2023/QSC/89770). DISSEMINATION OF FINDINGS: Findings will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and at national and international conferences. They will also be reported to BreastScreen Queensland, BreastScreen Australia, Cancer Australia, and other bodies involved in cancer care and screening, including patient and support organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12623000001695p (prospective: 9 January 2023).

Understanding the Relationship between Illness Perceptions and Health Behaviour among Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.

This paper aims to delineate the cognitive, emotional, and behavioural responses of women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) to their illness by applying the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM) to their health behaviour. An online cross-sectional design was used to examine the relationship between participants' illness perceptions (illness identity, consequence, timeline, control, and cause) and emotional representations of their PCOS, and their health behaviours (diet, physical activity, and risky contraceptive behaviour). The participants were 252 women between the ages of 18 and 45 years, living in Australia, and self-reporting a diagnosis of PCOS, recruited through social media. Participants completed an online questionnaire regarding illness perceptions as well as their diet, physical activity, and risky contraceptive behaviour. Illness identity was positively associated with the number of maladaptive dietary practices (B = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.003, 0.138; p = 0.04), and perception of longer illness duration was associated with reduced physical activity (OR = 0.898, 95% CI: 0.807, 0.999; p = 0.49) and risky contraceptive behaviour (OR = 0.856, 95% CI: 0.736, 0.997; p = 0.045). The limitations of the study include all data being self-reported (including PCOS diagnosis), and the potential for analyses of physical activity and risky contraceptive use being underpowered due to reduced sample sizes. The sample was also highly educated and restricted to those who use social media. These findings suggest that illness perceptions may play a role in influencing health behaviour in women with PCOS. A better understanding of the illness perceptions of women with PCOS is needed to increase health-promoting behaviour and improve health outcomes for women with PCOS.

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.

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.

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+.

The challenges with managing polycystic ovary syndrome: A qualitative study of women's and clinicians' experiences.

OBJECTIVE: To explore clinicians' and women's views and experiences with managing polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 36 clinicians and 26 women with PCOS. Clinicians were recruited through advertising via relevant professional organisations, snowballing and contacting clinics across Australia. Women with PCOS were recruited through social media advertising. Transcribed audio-recordings were analysed thematically using Framework analysis. RESULTS: Findings across women with PCOS and clinician interviews were organised into three themes. Both women and clinicians experienced 1) challenges with managing PCOS, often stemming from the disparate and wide spectrum of presentations, issues with current treatment options (including limited evidence) and the long-term nature of management. Both spoke about 2) online information about PCOS and alternative treatments, including lack of relevant information and widespread misinformation. 3) Follow-up and continuity of care, where we found notable differences between women's and clinicians' expectations. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to explore both clinicians' and women's experiences with managing PCOS, illustrating several challenges in managing this heterogeneous condition. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clarifying and addressing patient expectations, providing personalised counselling and information according to PCOS phenotype and a multidisciplinary approach may reduce uncertainty and improve patient-centred care.

Patient-Reported Factors Associated With Older Adults' Cancer Screening Decision-making: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Decisions for older adults (aged ≥65 years) and their clinicians about whether to continue to screen for cancer are not easy. Many older adults who are frail or have limited life expectancy or comorbidities continue to be screened for cancer despite guidelines suggesting they should not; furthermore, many older adults have limited knowledge of the potential harms of continuing to be screened. Objective: To summarize the patient-reported factors associated with older adults' decisions regarding screening for breast, prostate, colorectal, and cervical cancer. Evidence Review: Studies were identified by searching databases from January 2000 to June 2020 and were independently assessed for inclusion by 2 authors. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were independently conducted by 2 authors, and then all decisions were cross-checked and discussed where necessary. Data analysis was performed from September to December 2020. Findings: The search yielded 2475 records, of which 21 unique studies were included. Nine studies were quantitative, 8 were qualitative, and 4 used mixed method designs. Of the 21 studies, 17 were conducted in the US, and 10 of 21 assessed breast cancer screening decisions only. Factors associated with decision-making were synthesized into 5 categories: demographic, health and clinical, psychological, physician, and social and system. Commonly identified factors associated with the decision to undergo screening included personal or family history of cancer, positive screening attitudes, routine or habit, to gain knowledge, friends, and a physician's recommendation. Factors associated with the decision to forgo screening included being older, negative screening attitudes, and desire not to know about cancer. Some factors had varying associations, including insurance coverage, living in a nursing home, prior screening experience, health problems, limited life expectancy, perceived cancer risk, risks of screening, family, and a physician's recommendation to stop. Conclusions and Relevance: Although guidelines suggest incorporating life expectancy and health status to inform older adults' cancer screening decisions, older adults' ingrained beliefs about screening may run counter to these concepts. Communication strategies are needed that support older adults to make informed cancer screening decisions by addressing underlying screening beliefs in context with their perceived and actual risk of developing cancer.

Preferences for More or Less Health Care and Association With Health Literacy of Men Eligible for Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening in Australia.

Importance: Understanding personal factors that influence diverse responses to health care information, such as preferences for more or less health care, might be beneficial to more effective communication and better involvement in health care choices. Objective: To determine whether individuals' preferences for more or less health care are associated with informed choice and understanding of overdiagnosis in routine prostate cancer screening and to examine associations among preferences, educational status, and health literacy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study included a community-based sample of men in Australia aged 45 to 60 years eligible for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, recruited via an international social research company. Survey data were collected online from June 27 to July 26, 2018. Data were analyzed in April 2020. Exposures: Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 versions of an online decision aid (full-length or abbreviated) about PSA screening and completed an online survey that included a measure of preference for more or less health care, the Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale (MMS), in which higher score indicates preference for more health care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was informed choice; knowledge, attitudes, and intentions about screening for prostate cancer were also measured. Results: Of 3722 participants who began the survey, 2993 (80.4%) completed it (mean [SD] age, 52.15 [6.65] years). Stronger preferences for more heath care were observed in those without tertiary education (mean difference, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.22; P < .001) and with inadequate health literacy (mean difference, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.09-0.22; P < .001). After controlling for health and demographic variables, a 1-unit increase in MMS score was associated with reduced relative risk (RR) of making an informed choice (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.82; P < .001) and of having adequate conceptual knowledge (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90; P < .001), correct numerical knowledge (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.97; P = .001), and correct understanding of overdiagnosis (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.90; P < .001). A 1-unit increase in MMS score was associated with a more positive attitude toward screening (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.15-1.21; P < .001) and more positive intention to screen (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.16-1.25; P < .001) after adjusting for control variables. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study examined associations between preferences for more or less health care and knowledge about overdiagnosis and informed choice among men in Australia. These results may motivate clinicians to elicit individual patient preferences to facilitate tailored discussions with patients about low-value care, such as prostate cancer screening, for which benefit is uncertain.

Psychosocial and clinical predictors of continued cancer screening in older adults.

OBJECTIVE: Many older adults (aged 75+) continue cancer screening despite guidelines suggesting they should not. Using mixed-methods, we examined psychosocial and clinical factors associated with continued breast/prostate screening. METHODS: We conducted an online, scenario-based, randomized study in Australia with participants aged 65+ years. The primary outcome was screening intention (10-point scale, dichotomized: low (1-5) and high (6-10)). We also measured demographic, psychosocial, and age-related clinical variables. Participants provided reason/s for their screening intentions in free-text. RESULTS: 271 eligible participants completed the survey (aged 65-90 years, 71% adequate health literacy). Those who reported higher cancer anxiety, were men, screened more recently, had family history of breast/prostate cancer and were independent in activities of daily living, were more likely to intend to continue screening. Commonly reported reasons for intending to continue screening were grouped into six themes: routine adherence, the value of knowing, positive screening attitudes, perceived susceptibility, benefits focus, and needing reassurance. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial factors may drive continued cancer screening in older adults and undermine efforts to promote informed decision-making. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: When communicating benefits and harms of cancer screening to older adults, both clinical and psychosocial factors should be discussed to support informed decision-making.

Active surveillance as a management option for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2: An online experimental study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate framing of active surveillance as a management option for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2 in women of childbearing age. METHODS: We conducted a between-subjects factorial (2 × 2) randomised experiment. Women aged 25-40 living in Australia were presented with the same hypothetical pathway of testing human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive, high-grade cytology and a diagnosis of CIN2, through an online survey. They were randomised to one of four groups to evaluate the effects of (i) framing (method of explaining resolution of abnormal cells) and (ii) inclusion of an overtreatment statement (included versus not). Primary outcome was management choice following the scenario: active surveillance or surgery. RESULTS: 1638 women were randomised. Overall, preference for active surveillance was high (78.9%; n = 1293/1638). There was no effect of framing or providing overtreatment information, or their interaction, on management choice. After adjusting for intervention received, age, education, and other model covariates, participants were more likely to choose active surveillance over surgery if they had not already had children, had plans for children in the future, had no family history of cancer, had no history of endometriosis, had adequate health literacy, and more trust in their GP. Participants were less likely to choose active surveillance over surgery if they were more predisposed to seek health care for minor problems. CONCLUSIONS: Although we found no framing effect across the four conditions, we found a high level of preference for active surveillance with associations of increased preference that accord with the desire to minimise potential risks of CIN2 treatment on obstetric outcomes. These are valuable data for future clinical trials of active surveillance for management of CIN2 in younger women of childbearing age. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618002043213, 20/12/2018, prior to participant enrolment).

Australian National Cervical Screening Program renewal: Attitudes and experiences of general practitioners, and obstetricians and gynaecologists.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) implemented five-yearly primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening for women aged 25-74. It is important that clinicians are able to explain the NCSP changes to women and confidently address concerns. AIMS: This study examined Australian clinicians' attitudes toward and experiences of the NCSP renewal since its implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of clinicians (general practitioners, obstetricians and gynaecologists) involved in cervical screening, distributed two years after implementation of the renewed NCSP. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Six hundred and seven participants completed the survey. More than 80% of clinicians were comfortable with the main NCSP changes: extended screening intervals, increased age of first screening, and screening test used. However, only 47% of clinicians reported having utilised the National Cancer Screening Register, and a third of clinicians did not believe that self-collection was a reasonable alternative to practitioner-collected screening for under-screened women. Increased demands for colposcopy were reported. All clinicians identified at least one area of educational need, including the management of women with a history of screen-detected abnormalities in the previous program (34.9%), post-colposcopy management for women with no abnormalities detected (25.5%), and screening in complex scenarios (eg immunocompromise) (26.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, Australian clinicians are comfortable with the main changes to the cervical screening program. Certain areas may require further policy review, such as screening in complex clinical scenarios, colposcopy availability, accessibility of the Register and self-collection. These issues could be meaningful for other countries switching to HPV-based screening.

Getting the timing right: Women's views on the best time to announce changes to cancer screening policy recommendations.

In December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) changed from 2-yearly cervical cytology to 5-yearly primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, starting at age 25 and with an exit test when aged 70-74. Women showed limited awareness of these changes prior to their implementation. We explored women's preferences for how similar cancer screening changes could be communicated to the public in the future, including when, how, and using what methods. Six focus groups including 49 women aged 18-74 were conducted in November 2017. Focus groups were guided by information available on the NCSP website and information developed by the researchers. Generally, women suggested that communication of changes to cancer screening programs would ideally occur between 6 and 12 months ahead of their implementation and that they would like the opportunity to be involved in consultation about the changes. The NCSP website was described as answering basic questions, but also raising further questions for which there were no answers provided. Most groups preferred information which included evidence behind the changes and wanted an option of more information. Similar suggestions were made across all focus groups about how communications could be delivered, with recognition that the mode of delivery should differ by age. Women were still seeking information about the test itself and a symptom list, in order to be aware of these over the five-year period. These findings make an important and timely contribution which could help inform other countries considering making changes to their cancer screening programs in the future.

Effects of health literacy, screening, and participant choice on action plans for reducing unhealthy snacking in Australia: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low health literacy is associated with poorer health outcomes. A key strategy to address health literacy is a universal precautions approach, which recommends using health-literate design for all health interventions, not just those targeting people with low health literacy. This approach has advantages: Health literacy assessment and tailoring are not required. However, action plans may be more effective when tailored by health literacy. This study evaluated the impact of health literacy and action plan type on unhealthy snacking for people who have high BMI or type 2 diabetes (Aim 1) and the most effective method of action plan allocation (Aim 2). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a 2-stage randomised controlled trial in Australia between 14 February and 6 June 2019. In total, 1,769 participants (mean age: 49.8 years [SD = 11.7]; 56.1% female [n = 992]; mean BMI: 32.9 kg/m2 [SD = 8.7]; 29.6% self-reported type 2 diabetes [n = 523]) were randomised to 1 of 3 allocation methods (random, health literacy screening, or participant selection) and 1 of 2 action plans to reduce unhealthy snacking (standard versus literacy-sensitive). Regression analysis evaluated the impact of health literacy (Newest Vital Sign [NVS]), allocation method, and action plan on reduction in self-reported serves of unhealthy snacks (primary outcome) at 4-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes were perceived extent of unhealthy snacking, difficulty using the plans, habit strength, and action control. Analyses controlled for age, level of education, language spoken at home, diabetes status, baseline habit strength, and baseline self-reported serves of unhealthy snacks. Average NVS score was 3.6 out of 6 (SD = 2.0). Participants reported consuming 25.0 serves of snacks on average per week at baseline (SD = 28.0). Regarding Aim 1, 398 participants in the random allocation arm completed follow-up (67.7%). On average, people scoring 1 SD below the mean for health literacy consumed 10.0 fewer serves per week using the literacy-sensitive action plan compared to the standard action plan (95% CI: 0.05 to 19.5; p = 0.039), whereas those scoring 1 SD above the mean consumed 3.0 fewer serves using the standard action plan compared to the literacy-sensitive action plan (95% CI: -6.3 to 12.2; p = 0.529), although this difference did not reach statistical significance. In addition, we observed a non-significant action plan × health literacy (NVS) interaction (b = -3.25; 95% CI: -6.55 to 0.05; p = 0.054). Regarding Aim 2, 1,177 participants across the 3 allocation method arms completed follow-up (66.5%). There was no effect of allocation method on reduction of unhealthy snacking, including no effect of health literacy screening compared to participant selection (b = 1.79; 95% CI: -0.16 to 3.73; p = 0.067). Key limitations include low-moderate retention, use of a single-occasion self-reported primary outcome, and reporting of a number of extreme, yet plausible, snacking scores, which rendered interpretation more challenging. Adverse events were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: In our study we observed nominal improvements in effectiveness of action plans tailored to health literacy; however, these improvements did not reach statistical significance, and the costs associated with such strategies compared with universal precautions need further investigation. This study highlights the importance of considering differential effects of health literacy on intervention effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12618001409268.

Women's experiences of the renewed National Cervical Screening Program in Australia 12 months following implementation: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To 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. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. SETTING: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Women 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). METHODS: 26 interviews with women aged 25 to 74 were conducted and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Three 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. CONCLUSIONS: Women 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.

Implementing changes to cervical screening: A qualitative study with health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Profound changes were made to the Australian National Cervical Screening Program in December 2017, which included a reduction in the frequency of screening and a new cervical screening test. AIM: To explore the attitudes and experiences of health professionals practising in Australia since implementation of these changes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with general practitioners, obstetricians and gynaecologists, pathologists and nurses involved in cervical screening Australia-wide. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Overall, health professionals had positive attitudes toward the changes but described many challenges associated with their implementation. Participants discussed practical system challenges, communication and education, finding ways around the guidelines and other perceived 'collateral'. Practical system challenges included increased colposcopy referrals, limited access to the National Cancer Screening Register, a complex primary screening approach, and issues with self-collection. In terms of communication and education, limited public education was recognised, in addition to challenges with particular age groups of women. Finding ways around the guidelines were described, for example over-referring women for co-testing by stating symptoms, which could lead to overtreatment. Other perceived collateral were demonstrated through reduced opportunistic screening opportunities due to less frequent primary care presentations, and concern over the potential for further underscreening in already under-screened populations. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide insight into the challenges health professionals face with renewing programs, in terms of practical issues and unexpected downstream effects which need to be addressed to ensure future implementation of the program is streamlined.