The early impacts of primary HPV cervical screening implementation in Australia on the pathology sector: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The transition of Australia's National Cervical Screening Program from cytology to a molecular test for human papillomavirus (HPV) (locally referred to as the 'Renewal'), including a longer five-year interval and older age at commencement, significantly impacted all sectors of program delivery. The Renewal had major implications for the roles and requirements of pathology laboratories providing services for the Program. This study aimed to understand the early impacts of the Renewal and its implementation on the pathology sector. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (N = 49) involved in the STakeholder Opinions of Renewal Implementation and Experiences Study (STORIES), 11-20 months after the program transition. A subset of interviews (N = 24) that discussed the pathology sector were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four overarching themes were identified: implementation enablers, challenges, missed opportunities, and possible improvements. Participants believed that the decision to transition to primary HPV screening was highly acceptable and evidence-based, but faced challenges due to impacts on laboratory infrastructure, resources, staffing, and finances. These challenges were compounded by unfamiliarity with new information technology (IT) systems and the new National Cancer Screening Register ('Register') not being fully functional by the date of the program transition. The limited availability of self-collection and lack of standardised fields in pathology forms were identified as missed opportunities to improve equity in the Program. To improve implementation processes, participants suggested increased pathology sector involvement in planning was needed, along with more timely and transparent communication from the Government, and clearer clinical management guidelines. CONCLUSION: The transition to primary HPV screening had a significant and multifaceted impact on the Australian pathology sector reflecting the magnitude and complexity of the Renewal. Strategies to support the pathology sector through effective change management, clear, timely, and transparent communication, as well as adequate funding sources will be critical for other countries planning to transition cervical screening programs.

Implementation of Australia's primary human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical screening program: The STakeholders Opinions of Renewal Implementation and Experiences Study.

In this study, we aimed to document stakeholders' experiences of implementing Australia's renewed National Cervical Screening Program. In December 2017, the program changed from 2nd yearly cytology for 20-69 year olds to 5 yearly human papillomavirus (HPV) screening for women 25-74 years. We undertook semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders including government, program administrators, register staff, clinicians and health care workers, non-government organisations, professional bodies, and pathology laboratories from across Australia between Nov 2018 - Aug 2019. Response rate to emailed invitations was 49/85 (58%). We used Proctor et al's (2011) implementation outcomes framework to guide our questions and thematic analysis. We found that stakeholders were evenly divided over whether implementation was successful. There was strong support for change, but concern over aspects of the implementation. There was some frustration related to the delayed start, timeliness of communication and education, shortcomings in change management, lack of inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in planning and implementation, failure to make self-collection widely available, and delays in the National Cancer Screening Register. Barriers centred around a perceived failure to appreciate the enormity of the change and register build, and consequent failure to resource, project manage and communicate effectively. Facilitators included the good will and dedication of stakeholders, strong evidence base for change and the support of jurisdictions during the delay. We documented substantial implementation challenges, offering learnings for other countries transitioning to HPV screening. Sufficient planning, significant and transparent engagement and communication with stakeholders, and change management are critical.

'I'm a bit of a champion for it actually': qualitative insights into practitioner-supported self-collection cervical screening among early adopting Victorian practitioners in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Self-collection for cervical screening has been available in the Australian National Cervical Screening Program since 2017 and is now available to all people as an option for cervical screening through a practitioner-supported model. Documenting early adopting practitioner experiences with self-collection as a mechanism to engage people in cervical screening is crucial to informing its continuing roll-out and implementation in other health systems. AIM: This study aimed to describe the experiences of practitioners in Victoria, Australia, who used human papillomavirus (HPV)-based self-collection cervical screening during the first 17 months of its availability. METHODS: Interviews (n = 18) with practitioners from Victoria, who offered self-collection to their patients between December 2017 and April 2019, analysed using template analysis. FINDINGS: Practitioners were overwhelmingly supportive of self-collection cervical screening because it was acceptable to their patients and addressed patients' barriers to screening. Practitioners perceived that knowledge and awareness of self-collection were variable among the primary care workforce, with some viewing self-collection to be inferior to clinician-collected screening. Practitioners championed self-collection at an individual level, with the extent of practice-level implementation depending on resourcing. Concerns regarding supporting the follow-up of self-collected HPV positive patients were noted. Other practical barriers included gaining timely, accurate screening histories from the National Cancer Screening Register to assess eligibility. Practitioners' role surrounded facilitating the choice between screening tests through a patient-centred approach.

"So, if she wasn't aware of it, then how would everybody else out there be aware of it?"-Key Stakeholder Perspectives on the Initial Implementation of Self-Collection in Australia's Cervical Screening Program: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: In December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program transitioned from 2-yearly cytology-based to 5-yearly human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening, including a vaginal self-collection option. Until July 2022, this option was restricted to under- or never-screened people aged 30 years and older who refused a speculum exam. We investigated the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders involved in, or affected by, the initial implementation of the restricted self-collection pathway. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 49 stakeholders as part of the STakeholder Opinions of Renewal Implementation and Experiences Study. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were thematically analysed and coded to the Conceptual Framework for Implementation Outcomes. RESULTS: Stakeholders viewed the introduction of self-collection as an exciting opportunity to provide under-screened people with an alternative to a speculum examination. Adoption in clinical practice, however, was impacted by a lack of clear communication and promotion to providers, and the limited number of laboratories accredited to process self-collected samples. Primary care providers tasked with communicating and offering self-collection described confusion about the availability, participant eligibility, pathology processes, and clinical management processes for self-collection. Regulatory delay in developing an agreed protocol to approve laboratory processing of self-collected swabs, and consequently initially having one laboratory nationally accredited to process samples, led to missed opportunities and misinformation regarding the pathway's availability. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the introduction of self-collection was welcomed, clear communication from Government regarding setbacks in implementation and how to overcome these in practice were needed. As Australia moves to a policy of providing everyone eligible for screening the choice of self-collection, wider promotion to providers and eligible people, clarity around pathology processes and the scaling up of test availability, as well as timely education and communication of clinical management practice guidelines, are needed to ensure smoother program delivery in the future. Other countries implementing self-collection policies can learn from the implementation challenges faced by Australia.

The experience of under-screened and never-screened participants using clinician-supported self-collection cervical screening within the Australian National Cervical Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: Australia has had significant successes in the prevention of cervical cancer. However, there is considerable scope for improving screening participation. In December 2017, Australia shifted from cytology to a human papillomavirus-based screening program as part of the renewed National Cervical Screening Program. This provided the opportunity to introduce a clinician-supported self-collection cervical screening pathway, which allows screening participants aged 30 years or more and who are under-screened or never-screened to screen via a self-collected human papillomavirus test. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore screening participant experiences of a clinician-supported self-collection cervical screening pathway. METHODS: Interviews (n = 45) were conducted with participants who had used the clinician-supported self-collection cervical screening pathway in the Australian National Cervical Screening Program between December 2017 and April 2019. Interviews were analyzed using template analysis. RESULTS: Under-screened and never-screened participants reported a variety of interrelated barriers to cervical screening due to the nature of the test. For these participants, self-collection was a preferable way to perform screening as it overcame various barriers, was easy to use and promoted a sense of empowerment. Participants reported that the role of their practitioner was influential in their decision to undertake cervical screening, and that the support and information provided was a key factor in their experiences of the self-collection pathway. CONCLUSION: Findings support the use of a clinician-supported model of care, as an alternative screening modality in Australia's National Cervical Screening Program. As more countries consider the move from a cytology to human papillomavirus-based cervical screening program, this model may assist in greater engagement of under-screened participants.

Self-collection cervical screening in the renewed National Cervical Screening Program: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the implementation and acceptability of the self-collection cervical screening pathway since commencement of the renewed National Cervical Screening Program (rNCSP), from the perspectives of screening participants and primary care practitioners. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative study; individual semi-structured interviews with 45 screening participants and 18 primary care practitioners in Victoria who had engaged with the self-collection pathway during the first 17 months of the rNCSP (1 December 2017 - 30 April 2019). RESULTS: The self-collection pathway was highly acceptable as an alternative cervical screening pathway for most participating screening participants and practitioners. Some screening participants indicated that they would not have been screened had the pathway not been available. Acceptability was lower among those who had tested positive for HPV types not 16/18, a result that requires additional testing of a clinician-collected cervical sample. Use of the self-collection pathway is driven more by practitioners than their patients. Interpretations of the self-collection guidelines varied between practices. Barriers to expanding promotion of the pathway by practitioners included difficulties with identifying eligible participants. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the accessibility of the self-collection pathway to under- and never screened women could reduce inequities in cervical cancer outcomes for those not participating in the main screening pathway. Practitioners should be provided resources to integrate self-collection into routine practice and to efficiently implement the entire self-collection pathway, in order to maximise its use and to optimise the experience for screening participants.

Self-Collection for Cervical Screening Programs: From Research to Reality.

In 2018, there were an estimated 570,000 new cases of cervical cancer globally, with most of them occurring in women who either had no access to cervical screening, or had not participated in screening in regions where programs are available. Where programs are in place, a major barrier for women across many cultures has been the requirement to undergo a speculum examination. With the emergence of HPV-based primary screening, the option of self-collection (where the woman takes the sample from the vagina herself) may overcome this barrier, given that such samples when tested using a PCR-based HPV assay have similar sensitivity for the detection of cervical pre-cancers as practitioner-collected cervical specimens. Other advantages of HPV-based screening using self-collection, beyond the increase in acceptability to women, include scalability, efficiency, and high negative predictive value, allowing for long intervals between negative tests. Self-collection will be a key strategy for the successful scale up of cervical screening programs globally in response to the WHO call for all countries to work towards the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem. This review will examine self-collection for HPV-based cervical screening including the collection devices, assays and possible routine laboratory processes considering how they can be utilized in cervical screening programs.

Implementation of Australia's renewed cervical screening program: Preparedness of general practitioners and nurses.

The National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) in Australia underwent major changes on December 1st, 2017. The program changed from 2-yearly Pap testing for women aged 18-69 years to 5-yearly HPV testing for women aged 25-74 years including differential management pathways for oncogenic HPV 16/18 positive versus HPV non16/18 positive test results and the option of self-collection for under-screened women. We conducted a survey among cervical screening providers in primary care to assess their level of preparedness in undertaking cervical screening before (pre-renewal) and after (post-renewal) the new program was implemented. Surveys were conducted between 14th August and 30th November 2017 (pre-renewal) and 9th February and 26th October 2018 (post-renewal) among cervical screening providers who attended education sessions related to the new guidelines. Preparedness was assessed in three areas: 1) level of comfort implementing the new guidelines (7 questions), 2) level of confidence in their ability to convey information about the new guidelines (9 questions) and 3) level of agreement regarding access to resources to support implementation (11 questions). Proportions were calculated for each question response and pre- and post-renewal periods compared using generalised linear models. Open-ended questions related to anticipated barriers and ways to overcome barriers were also included in the questionnaires. Compared to the pre-renewal period, a higher proportion of practitioners in the post-renewal period were more comfortable offering routine screening to women ≥25 years (p = 0.005) and more confident explaining the rationale for not screening before 25 years (p = 0.015); confident explaining a positive HPV 16/18 (p = 0.04) and HPV non 16/18(p = 0.013) test result and were comfortable with not referring women with a positive HPV non 16/18 test result and low grade/negative cytology for colposcopy (p = 0.01). A higher proportion of Victorian practitioners in the post-renewal period sample were also comfortable (p = 0.04) and confident (p = 0.015) recommending self-collection to under-screened women and agreed that self-collection is a reliable test (p = 0.003). The most commonly reported suggestion was to provide information, education and communication materials to both patients and practitioners. Compared to the pre-renewal period, practitioners in the post-renewal period were better prepared to implement the renewed screening program. Healthcare providers require further support to implement the self-collection pathway.