Concerns about disclosing a high-risk cervical human papillomavirus (HPV) infection to a sexual partner: a systematic review and thematic synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening is now replacing cytology-based screening in several countries and many women in screening programmes will consequently receive HPV-positive results. Because of the sexually transmitted nature of HPV, receiving an HPV-positive result may raise questions about disclosing the infection to a sexual partner. OBJECTIVE: To review the quantitative and qualitative literature exploring women's concerns about disclosing a high-risk cervical HPV infection to a sexual partner. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science and EMBASE for studies reporting at least one disclosure-related outcome among women with high-risk HPV. We also searched the grey literature and carried out forward/backward citation searches. A narrative synthesis for quantitative studies and a thematic synthesis for qualitative studies were conducted. RESULTS: Thirteen articles met the inclusion criteria (12 qualitative, 1 quantitative). In the quantitative study, 60% of HPV-positive women felt disclosing an HPV result was 'risky'. Concerns about disclosing HPV to a sexual partner were influenced by the stigma that is associated with having an STI and uncertainty about how their partner would respond. Women questioned how, when and to whom they should disclose their HPV-positive status. CONCLUSIONS: The studies included in this review provide rich information about the range of concerns women have, the reasons for these concerns, and the questions women have about disclosing HPV to sexual partners. As studies were predominantly qualitative, the prevalence of concerns is unclear.

Increasing the perceived relevance of cervical screening in older women who do not plan to attend screening.

OBJECTIVES: Uptake of cervical screening among women aged 50-64 years is declining. Not feeling at risk because of current sexual behaviour is a reason some older women give for not being screened. We hypothesised that explaining the long interval between acquiring human papillomavirus (HPV) and developing cervical cancer would increase the relevance of screening in older women. METHODS: Women aged 50-64 years (n=597) who did not intend to go for screening were recruited through an online panel and randomised to one of three information conditions: cause only (basic information about HPV and cervical cancer), cause with basic timeline (also read a sentence describing the long interval between acquiring HPV and developing cervical cancer) and cause with explicit timeline (read the same as the timeline group alongside an explanation of what this means for older women). Perceived risk of cervical cancer, screening intention strength and understanding of HPV were assessed preinformation and postinformation exposure. RESULTS: Information condition was significantly associated with risk perceptions and intention strength postintervention (F(2,593)=6.26, p=0.002 and F(2,593)=4.98, p=0.007 respectively). Women in the cause with explicit timeline condition were more likely to increase their risk perceptions and intention strength compared with cause only (24% vs 9% and 25% vs 13% for risk perceptions and intention, respectively). In the cause with explicit timeline group, women with 4-10 lifetime partners had higher odds of increasing their perceived risk and intention strength postintervention compared with those with 0-1 partners (OR=2.27, 95% CI 1.01 to 5.12 and OR=3.20, 95% CI 1.34 to 7.67, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Providing a clear explanation that decouples women's perceived cervical cancer risk from their current sexual behaviour has the potential to increase perceived risk of cervical cancer and intentions to be screened among older women. Providing women with a clear cognitive representation of the aetiology of cervical cancer may be one approach to increasing screening uptake.

Offering an app to book cervical screening appointments: A service evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of offering women who are overdue for cervical screening the use of a smartphone app to book their appointment. METHODS: Women who were at least six months overdue for cervical screening in three general practice surgeries in a deprived East London borough were identified from practice records. Staff sent batches of text messages informing women that they were overdue for screening, and inviting them to download an app to book their appointment. RESULTS: Across the three practices, 2632 eligible women were identified. Valid mobile phone numbers were available for 1465 women. One woman had opted out of receiving text messages, so messages were sent to 1464 women. Of these, 158 (11%) booked a screening appointment within five months. The majority of these women booked without using the app (72%; 113/158); just over a quarter booked via the app (28%; 45/158). CONCLUSIONS: Just over 10% of cervical screening non-attenders booked an appointment in response to a text message with a link to a downloadable app; however, only one in four of these women booked using the app. This suggests that the text message reminder was likely to have been the key 'active ingredient' for most women, rather than the app itself. Future research could explore the optimal message for a text reminder in this context and evaluate the inclusion of a link to existing online booking systems.

Decision-making about HPV vaccination in parents of boys and girls: A population-based survey in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: School-based HPV vaccination in the UK will soon be extended to boys. Based on other countries' experience, uptake may initially be lower in boys than girls. We assessed HPV vaccine attitudes and decision-making in parents of boys and girls, to explore sex differences and inform public health messages. METHODS: We carried out a cross-sectional population-based survey using home-based interviews in spring 2019. Participants were adults in England and Wales, with a child in school years 5-7 (aged 9-12 and eligible for HPV vaccination within 3 years). Measures included awareness of HPV and the vaccine, demographic factors, previous vaccine refusal and (after exposure to brief information) whether participants would allow their child to have the HPV vaccine (decided to vaccinate; decided not to vaccinate; undecided). We also assessed vaccine attitudes. Data were weighted to adjust for non-response. Multinomial logistic regression was used to explore predictors of deciding to (or not to) vaccinate compared with being undecided. RESULTS: Among 1049 parents (weighted n = 1156), 55% were aware of HPV and the girls' vaccination programme, but only 23% had heard of plans to vaccinate boys. After information exposure, 62% said they would vaccinate their child, 10% would not, and 28% were undecided. Parents of girls were more willing to vaccinate than parents of boys (adjusted odds ratio: 1.80 (1.32-2.45)). Positive attitudes and HPV/vaccine awareness were significantly independently associated with deciding to vaccinate. Previous vaccine refusal for a child was the strongest predictor of not wanting the HPV vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a need for public health campaigns to raise awareness of plans to extend HPV vaccination to boys. Reassuringly only 10% of all parents were unwilling to vaccinate and our data suggest further information, including about safety and efficacy, may be important in supporting undecided parents to make the decision to vaccinate.

The psychosexual impact of testing positive for high-risk cervical human papillomavirus (HPV): A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Many countries are implementing human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening due to the higher sensitivity of the test compared with cytology. As HPV is sexually transmitted, there may be psychosexual consequences of testing positive for the virus. We aimed to review the literature exploring the psychosexual impact of testing positive for high-risk cervical HPV. METHODS: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched with no date limits. We also searched the grey literature, reference lists of included articles and carried out forward citation searching. Eligible studies reported at least one psychosexual outcome among HPV-positive women. Qualitative and quantitative papers were included. We extracted data using a standardised form and carried out a quality assessment for each article. We conducted a narrative synthesis for quantitative studies and a thematic synthesis for qualitative studies. RESULTS: Twenty-five articles were included. Quantitative study designs were diverse making it difficult to determine the impact that an HPV positive result would have in the context of routine screening. The qualitative literature suggested that psychosexual concerns cover a broad range of aspects relating to women's current and past relationships, both interpersonal and sexual. CONCLUSIONS: The psychosexual impact of testing positive for high-risk cervical HPV is unclear. This review highlights the need for further research in the context of HPV-based cervical screening. As primary HPV testing is introduced more widely, it is important to understand women's responses to testing HPV positive in the cancer screening context to minimise any adverse psychosexual impact.

Could changing invitation and booking processes help women translate their cervical screening intentions into action? A population-based survey of women's preferences in Great Britain.

OBJECTIVES: Many women who do not attend screening intend to go, but do not get around to booking an appointment. Qualitative work suggests that these 'intenders' face more practical barriers to screening than women who are up-to-date ('maintainers'). This study explored practical barriers to booking a screening appointment and preferences for alternative invitation and booking methods that might overcome these barriers. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was employed. SETTING: Great Britain. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 25-64, living in Great Britain who intended to be screened but were overdue ('intenders', n=255) and women who were up-to-date with screening ('maintainers', n=359). RESULTS: 'Intenders' reported slightly more barriers than 'maintainers' overall (mean=1.36 vs 1.06, t=3.03, p<0.01) and were more likely to think they might forget to book an appointment (OR=2.87, 95% CI: 2.01 to 4.09). Over half of women said they would book on a website using a smartphone (62%), a computer (58%) or via an app (52%). Older women and women from lower social grades were less likely to say they would use online booking methods (all ps <0.05). Women who reported two or more barriers were more likely to say they would use online booking than women who reported none (ps <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Women who are overdue for screening face practical barriers to booking appointments. Future interventions may assess the efficacy of changing the architecture of the invitation and booking system. This may help women overcome logistical barriers to participation and increase coverage for cervical screening.

Socio-demographic correlates of cervical cancer risk factor knowledge among screening non-participants in Great Britain.

This study explored knowledge of cervical cancer risk factors among cervical screening non-participants in Great Britain. The aim was to identify knowledge gaps that could be targeted in screening information materials or public education campaigns. We used a cross-sectional design to survey women aged 25 to 64 years living in Great Britain, identified as cervical screening non-participants through self-report questions. Data were collected via a household survey. Survey questions measured awareness of risk factors for cervical cancer and socio-demographic factors. Screening non-participants were included in the study (n = 793) and classified into non-participant groups based on the Precaution Adoption Process Model. Across the sample, 57% of participants identified 'not going for regular smear tests' as a risk factor for cervical cancer. Women who intended to be screened were more likely to identify this risk factor than other non-participant groups (OR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.51-2.99). Women age 55-64 years (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39-0.93) and women from non-white ethnic backgrounds (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.52-0.94) were less likely to recognise this risk factor. Recognition was lower for 'infection with human papillomavirus' (41%). Just over half the sample were aware that screening non-attendance is associated with increased cervical cancer risk, suggesting that non-attendance at screening is not always based on an accurate understanding of the offer. Overall, non-participants are poorly informed about cervical cancer risk factors and further work is needed to ensure that women are making informed choices about (non-) participation.