Identifying ways to maximise cervical screening uptake: a qualitative study of GPs' and practice nurses' cervical cancer screening-related behaviours.

Background:  Cervical screening uptake is declining in several countries. Primary care practitioners could play a greater role in maximising uptake, but better understanding is needed of practitioners' cervical screening-related behaviours. Among general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses, we aimed to identify cervical screening-related clinical behaviours; clarify practitioners' roles/responsibilities; and determine factors likely to influence clinical behaviours. Methods: Telephone interviews were conducted with GPs and practice nurses in Ireland. Interview transcripts were analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a comprehensive psychological framework of factors influencing clinical behaviour. Results: 14 GPs and 19 practice nurses participated. Key clinical behaviours identified were offering smears and encouraging women to attend for smears. Smeartaking responsibility was considered a predominantly female role. Of 12 possible theoretical domains, 11 were identified in relation to these behaviours. Those judged to be the most important were beliefs about capabilities; environmental context and resources; social influences; and behavioural regulation. Difficulties in obtaining smears from certain subgroups of women and inexperience of some GPs in smeartaking arose in relation to beliefs about capabilities. The need for public health education and reluctance of male practitioners to discuss cervical screening with female patients emerged in relation to social influences.   Conclusions: We identified - for the first time - primary care practitioners' cervical-screening related clinical behaviours, their perceived roles and responsibilities, and factors likely to influence behaviours. The results could inform initiatives to enable practitioners to encourage women to have smear tests which in turn, may help increase cervical screening uptake.

Which primary care practitioners have poor human papillomavirus (HPV) knowledge? A step towards informing the development of professional education initiatives.

BACKGROUND: Primary care practitioners (PCP) play key roles in cervical cancer prevention. Human papillomavirus (HPV) knowledge is an important influence on PCPs' cervical cancer prevention-related behaviours. We investigated HPV knowledge, and associated factors, among general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses. METHODS: A survey, including factual questions about HPV infection and vaccination, was mailed to GPs and practice nurses in Ireland. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine which PCPs had low knowledge (questions correctly answered: infection ≤5/11; vaccination: ≤4/10). Questions least often answered correctly were identified. RESULTS: 697 PCPs participated. For HPV infection, GPs and practice nurses answered a median of nine and seven questions correctly, respectively (p<0.001). Significantly associated with low HPV infection knowledge were: being a practice nurse/male GP; working fewer hours/week; not having public patients; and having never taken a cervical smear. For HPV vaccination, both GPs and practice nurses answered a median of six questions correctly (p = 0.248). Significantly associated with low HPV vaccination knowledge were: being a practice nurse/male GP; working more years in general practice, fewer hours/week, in a smaller practice or in a practice not specialising in women's health; and having never taken a smear. Six HPV infection questions, and seven HPV vaccination questions, were not answered correctly by >⅓ of PCPs. CONCLUSIONS: There are important limitations in HPV infection and vaccination knowledge among PCPs. By identifying factors associated with poor knowledge, and areas of particular uncertainty, these results can inform development of professional education initiatives thereby ensuring women have access to uniformly high-quality HPV-related information and advice.

'It's a can of worms': understanding primary care practitioners' behaviours in relation to HPV using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer is transforming cervical cancer prevention. HPV tests and vaccinations have recently become available. In Ireland, as elsewhere, primary care practitioners play a key role in prevention. ATHENS (A Trial of HPV Education and Support) aims to develop a theory-based intervention to support primary care practitioners in their HPV-related practice. This study, the first step in the intervention development process, aimed to: identify HPV-related clinical behaviours that the intervention will target; clarify general practitioners' (GPs') and practice nurses' roles and responsibilities; and determine factors that potentially influence clinical behaviour. A secondary objective was to informally assess the utility of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) in understanding clinical behaviours in an area with an evolving evidence-base. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with GPs and practice nurses. The topic guide, which contained open questions and HPV-related clinical scenarios, was developed through literature review and clinical experience. Interview transcripts were content-analysed using the TDF as the coding framework. RESULTS: 19 GPs and 14 practice nurses were interviewed. The major HPV-related clinical behaviours were: initiating a discussion about HPV infection with female patients; offering/recommending HPV vaccination to appropriate patients; and answering patients' questions about HPV testing. While the responsibility for taking smears was considered a female role, both male and female practitioners dealt with HPV-related issues. All 12 theoretical domains arose in relation to HPV infection; the domains judged to be most important were: knowledge, emotion, social influences, beliefs about capabilities and beliefs about consequences. Eleven domains emerged in relation to HPV vaccination, with beliefs about consequences, social influences, knowledge and environmental context and resources judged to be the most important. Nine domains were relevant to HPV testing, with knowledge and beliefs about capabilities judged to be the most important. CONCLUSIONS: The findings confirm the need for an intervention to support primary care practitioners around HPV and suggest it should target a range of theoretical domains. The TDF proved valuable in analysing qualitative data collected using a topic guide not specifically designed to capture TDF domains and understanding clinical behaviours in an area with an evolving evidence-base.