"Knowing that I had HPV, I literally just shut down": A qualitative exploration of the psychosocial impact of human papillomavirus (HPV) in women living with mental health conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Psychological distress after testing positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) at cervical cancer screening is well documented in the general population. However, little is known about the impact of an HPV-positive result on those with pre-existing mental health conditions, who may be at higher risk of experiencing clinically significant distress. This study explored the psychosocial impact of HPV in women with co-morbid mental health conditions, as well as their experience of cervical screening during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 22 women aged 27-54 who had tested positive for HPV at routine cervical screening in England, and who reported having at least one mental health condition. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Being informed of an HPV-positive result increased distress and heightened pre-existing psychological challenges. Psychosocial response and duration of HPV-related distress appeared to be influenced by the ability to regulate emotions, number of consecutive HPV-positive results, interactions with health care professionals, and other life stressors. The experience added further complexity to many women's perceptions of self and self-esteem. Women who had received psychological treatment for their mental health condition were best able to self-manage HPV-related distress by applying learned coping skills. CONCLUSIONS: Receiving an HPV-positive result at cervical screening appears to be a distressing experience for women with co-morbid mental health conditions. Future hypothesis-driven research is needed to confirm findings and develop effective interventions to reduce psychosocial burden.

Acceptability of, and barriers and facilitators to, a pilot physical health service for people who inject drugs: A qualitative study with service users and providers.

BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs may experience difficulty accessing or maintaining involvement with traditional healthcare services. This is associated with increased health inequalities and bio-psychosocial difficulties. Embedding physical healthcare services within community-based drug services may provide a practical and feasible approach to increase access and delivery of healthcare. This study explored the acceptability of, and barriers and facilitators to, embedding a pilot physical healthcare service within a community-based drug service in the United Kingdom (Bristol, England). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with service users (people who inject drugs) (n = 13), and a focus group was conducted with service providers (n = 11: nine harm reduction workers, two nurses, one service manager). Topic guides included questions to explore barriers and facilitators to using and delivering the service (based on the COM-B Model), and acceptability of the service (using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability). Transcripts were analysed using a combined deductive framework and inductive thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: The service was viewed as highly acceptable. Service users and providers were confident they could access and provide the service respectively, and perceived it to be effective. Barriers included competing priorities of service users (e.g. drug use) and the wider service (e.g. equipment), and the potential impact of the service being removed in future was viewed as a barrier to overall healthcare access. Both service users and providers viewed embedding the physical health service within an existing community-based drug service as facilitating accessible and holistic care which reduced stigma and discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrated embedding a physical health service within an existing community-drug based and alcohol service was acceptable and beneficial. Future studies are required to demonstrate cost-effectiveness and ensure long-term sustainability, and to determine transferability of findings to other settings, organisations and countries.

How are emotional distress and reassurance expressed in medical consultations for people with long-term conditions who were unable to receive curative treatment? A pilot observational study with huntington's disease and prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: It is unclear whether how people with long-term conditions express distress, and how clinicians respond, influences perceptions of consultation outcomes. The pilot study examined emotional distress and reassurance in consultations with people whose long-term conditions (at the time of consultations) were treated using active surveillance or symptom management (as no curative treatment was suitable). METHODS: An observational pilot study was conducted involving consultations between people with long-term conditions and their respective clinician. Consultations between three clinicians (two Huntington's Disease; one Prostate Cancer) and 22 people with long-term conditions (11 Huntington's Disease; 11 Prostate Cancer) were audio-recorded. Participants also completed an expanded Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure. Two researchers coded sessions using Verona Coding Definitions of Emotional Sequences (VR-CoDES/VR-CoDES-P). Code frequencies were calculated, t tests performed between conditions, and Pearson's correlations performed for associations between CARE responses and clinician utterances. RESULTS: People with long-term conditions expressed emotional distress on average 4.45 times per session, averaging 1.09 Concern and 3.36 Cue utterances. Clinicians responded with more explicit (2.59) and space-providing (3.36), than non-explicit (1.86) and space-reducing (1.09), responses per session. Clinicians expressed spontaneous reassurance on average 5.18 times per session, averaging 3.77 Cognitive and 1.5 Affective reassurance utterances. Huntington's Disease consultations featured significantly more 'Cues', 'Concerns' and 'Overall' 'Emotional Distress', and 'Cognitive' and 'Overall' 'Reassurance'. CONCLUSION: Emotional distress was expressed more using hints than explicit concern utterances. Clinicians predominantly explicitly explored distress rather than providing information/advice and provided advice using spontaneous cognitive reassurance. People with Huntington's Disease expressed more concerns and received more reassurance, indicating different needs between conditions. Future research is required to explore emotional distress and reassurance in a larger sample of participants and long-term condition types, and how the practical implications of these findings may be used to enhance outcomes of consultations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.