A randomised controlled trial of volitional and motivational interventions to improve cervical cancer screening uptake.

OBJECTIVE: Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer to occur in women worldwide. In the UK, the NHS cervical screening programme invites eligible individuals to take part in screening every 3-5 years. At present, around 70% of individuals attend screening when invited. The present study aimed to test the effectiveness of a volitional and a motivational intervention alone and in combination on screening uptake at 16-week follow up. METHODS: 14,536 participants were recruited from the list of eligible participants invited for screening in Yorkshire, Humber and the North East regions of England in December 2021. They were randomised to a social norm-based motivational intervention (SNA); implementation intention-based Volitional Help Sheet (VHS); combined intervention (SNA + VHS); or treatment as usual control. The primary outcome was screening uptake measured via patient screening records at 16 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 14,466 participants with eligible data for analysis, 5793 (40.0%) attended for cervical cancer screening in the 16 weeks after the intervention mailing. Both age and deprivation influenced screening uptake, with lower uptake in the youngest individuals and those from more deprived areas. Compared to control, there was no evidence of any benefit from the VHS implementation intervention alone (Adj.OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.10), the SNA motivational intervention alone (Adj.OR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.99), or the combined intervention (Adj.OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06). CONCLUSION: The study did not support any benefit of either VHS or SNA interventions alone or in combination on cervical cancer screening uptake. It did demonstrate alarmingly low levels of screening uptake at 16 weeks which were well below the average rate. Future research needs to urgently investigate and understand the barriers to uptake following on from the COVID-19 pandemic.

What factors are most influential in increasing cervical cancer screening attendance? An online study of UK-based women.

Objective: Cervical cancer is the fourth most commonly occurring cancer in women worldwide. The UK has one of the highest cervical screening rates in Europe, yet attendance has been decreasing. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to screening attendance and assess the perceived importance of these factors. Methods: 194 women living in the UK were recruited via an online research recruitment website to an online survey. Most participants (N = 128, 66.0%) were currently up-to-date with cervical screening, 66 participants (34.0%) had never been screened, or were overdue for screening. Participants identified barriers and facilitators to cervical screening attendance via free-text responses and were also asked to rate a list of factors as most to least influential over decision making. Results were analysed using thematic content analysis and ratings analysed using multivariable analyses. Results: The most commonly reported barriers were: Pain/discomfort; Embarrassment; and Time. These were also rated as most influential for decision making. The most commonly reported facilitators were: Ease of making appointments; Peace of mind; and Fear of cancer/preventing serious illness. While importance rating of barriers did not differ by previous screening behaviour, ratings of some facilitators significantly differed. Up-to-date women rated believing screening is potentially life-saving and part of personal responsibility as significantly more important than overdue/never screened women. Conclusion: This study confirmed that factors which encourage screening are key to the decision of whether to attend screening. Women suggested several improvements that might make attending easier and improve uptake, including flexibility of screening locations to fit around work hours and childcare arrangements. Psychological facilitators included the peace of mind that screening brings and the belief that cervical cancer screening is potentially life-saving. Public health interventions should target factors which facilitate screening and how these interplay with barriers in order to improve uptake.