Working together with people with intellectual disability to make a difference: a protocol for a mixed-method co-production study to address inequities in cervical screening participation.

Introduction: Cervical cancer is one of the most preventable cancers yet remains a disease of inequity for people with intellectual disability, in part due to low screening rates. The ScreenEQUAL project will use an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) model to co-produce and evaluate accessible cervical screening resources with and for this group. Methods: Stage 1 will qualitatively explore facilitators and barriers to screening participation for people with intellectual disability, families and support people, healthcare providers and disability sector stakeholders (n ≈ 20 in each group). An accessible multimodal screening resource, accompanying supporting materials for families and support people, and trauma-informed healthcare provider training materials will then be co-produced through a series of workshops. Stage 2 will recruit people with intellectual disability aged 25 to 74 who are due or overdue for screening into a single-arm trial (n = 48). Trained support people will provide them with the co-produced resource in accessible workshops (intervention) and support them in completing pre-post questions to assess informed decision-making. A subset will participate in qualitative post-intervention interviews including optional body-mapping (n ≈ 20). Screening uptake in the 9-months following the intervention will be measured through data linkage. Family members and support people (n = 48) and healthcare providers (n = 433) will be recruited into single-arm sub-studies. Over a 4-month period they will, respectively, receive the accompanying supporting materials, and the trauma-informed training materials. Both groups will complete pre-post online surveys. A subset of each group (n ≈ 20) will be invited to participate in post-intervention semi-structured interviews. Outcomes and analysis: Our primary outcome is a change in informed decision-making by people with intellectual disability across the domains of knowledge, attitudes, and screening intention. Secondary outcomes include: (i) uptake of screening in the 9-months following the intervention workshops, (ii) changes in health literacy, attitudes and self-efficacy of family members and support people, and (iii) changes in knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and preparedness of screening providers. Each participant group will evaluate acceptability, feasibility and usability of the resources. Discussion: If found to be effective and acceptable, the co-produced cervical screening resources and training materials will be made freely available through the ScreenEQUAL website to support national, and potentially international, scale-up.

Renewal of the National Cervical Screening Program: health professionals' knowledge about screening of specific populations in NSW, Australia.

OBJECTIVES: The National Cervical Screening Program was renewed in Australia from 1 December 2017, with the introduction of 5-yearly human papilloma virus (HPV) screening from age 25, and the release of updated national screening guidelines. This study aimed to determine health professional knowledge of the renewed screening program following implementation. METHODS: We invited health professionals providing cervical screening in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, to complete an online survey in late 2018, to better understand their knowledge of the renewed screening guidelines, in particular regarding screening of specific populations, and to ascertain whether they had undertaken any educational activities relevant to the renewal. RESULTS: A total of 241 responses were included in the data analysis. Health professionals demonstrated good knowledge of some aspects of the renewed program, including 64-85% correctly identifying limited indications for testing people younger than 25 years, 87% correctly identifying the need for completion of the Test of Cure protocol following treatment of high-grade lesions, and 71-80% correctly identifying management of symptomatic women. However several key knowledge gaps were identified including management of immune-deficient women (only 37% of respondents were aware of the need for 3-yearly screening), screening after total hysterectomy (56% were aware of guidance) and approximately 66% of health professionals correctly identifying indications for self-collected screening. One in ten health professionals had not undertaken any education specific to the renewal of the program. We found significant associations between knowledge levels and practitioner characteristics, including practitioners' frequency of access to the guidelines, specific educational activities undertaken and geographic location. CONCLUSION: Health professionals demonstrated strong knowledge of key aspects of the renewed National Cervical Screening program. However, our findings highlight some important gaps that may impact successful delivery of the program in Australia, and some significant associations between practitioner characteristics and knowledge levels, which will be important for education providers to note. Targeted educational interventions informed by these findings could support health professionals to better translate guidelines into practice and ensure successful delivery of this important public health program, particularly in regard to management of immune-deficient women, screening after hysterectomy and indications for self-collected screening.

National Cervical Screening Program renewal in Australia: survey of clinician views and attitudes.

From 1 December 2017, the National Cervical Screening Program was renewed in Australia, with updated national cervical screening guidelines released. This study was performed to determine clinicians' familiarity with the updated guidelines and explore their views and attitudes towards the renewed program. Clinicians providing cervical screening in New South Wales, Australia, were invited to complete an online survey in 2018. Of the 241 clinicians who responded, 91.5% supported the change to 5-yearly human papillomavirus screening from the age of 25 years. However, nearly 13% indicated they did not know where to access the renewed guidelines and 37% had never or rarely accessed them. Open-ended responses highlighted clinicians' concerns about missed cancers and missed opportunities for health checks. Those raising these concerns accessed the guidelines less frequently. The findings highlight important areas for additional education and support for clinicians in translating guidelines into practice to ensure successful delivery of the renewed program.