Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women's views of cervical screening by self-collection: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women's views of self-collection introduced in the renewed National Cervical Screening Program.

METHODS

A total of 79 Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander women (50 screened in previous five years, 29 under-screened) from five clinics across three Australian states/territories participated. Topics discussed were perceptions of self-collection, the instruction card and suggestions for implementing self-collection. We employed yarning (a qualitative method), which established relationships and trust between participants and researchers to facilitate culturally safe conversations. Transcripts were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Most women were unaware of self-collection before the yarn but found it to be an acceptable way to participate in cervical screening. Women perceived self-collection would be convenient, provide a sense of control over the screening experience, and maintain privacy and comfort. The instructions were perceived to be simple and easy to follow. Women had concerns about collecting the sample correctly and the accuracy of the sample (compared to clinician-collected samples).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-collection is acceptable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. Implications for public health: Given the inequitable burden of cervical cancer experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, self-collection is likely to significantly improve participation and ultimately improve cervical cancer outcomes.

Indigenous Australian women's experiences of participation in cervical screening

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (collectively, Indigenous Australian) women experience a higher burden of cervical cancer than other women. The National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) is failing to meet the needs of Indigenous Australian women, resulting in many women not regularly participating in cervical screening. However, one third of Indigenous Australian women do participate in cervical screening. The reasons that some women in this population commence and continue to screen remain unheard but could provide insights to support women who currently do not participate. We aimed to describe Indigenous Australian women’s experiences and views of participation in cervical screening by yarning (a culturally-appropriate interview technique) with 50 Indigenous Australian women aged 25–70 years who had completed cervical screening in the past five years, recruited via Primary Health Care Centres (PHCCs) from three jurisdictions. Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander women researchers conducted the interviews. Thematic analysis identified six themes: screening as a means of staying strong and in control; overcoming fears, shame, and negative experiences of screening; needing to talk openly about screening; the value of trusting relationships with screening providers; logistical barriers; and overcoming privacy concerns for women employed at PHCCs. Despite describing screening as shameful, invasive, and uncomfortable, women perceived it as a way of staying healthy and exerting control over their health. This ultimately supported their participation and a sense of empowerment. Women valued open discussion about screening and strong relationships with health providers. We identified logistical barriers and specific barriers faced by women employed at PHCCs. This study is strengthened by a research approach that centred Indigenous Australian women’s voices. Understanding the experiences of Indigenous Australian women who participate in screening will help screening providers support women to start and continue to screen regularly. Recommendations for practice are provided.

Diabetic retinopathy screening in general practice: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Early detection and treatment of diabetic retinopathy (DR) can prevent nearly all associated severe vision loss. We investigated the feasibility of DR screening using nonmydriatic cameras in two Australian primary care clinics.

METHODS

Two general practitioners from Queensland photographed the retinas of patients with type 2 diabetes seen in their clinics during the 9 month study period. The patients were then photographed and assessed by two independent ophthalmologists. The ophthalmologists' assessments provided the reference standard. General practitioners' accuracy in determining photograph interpretability and DR diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were measured. The attitudes of GPs about the DR screening were also assessed.

RESULTS

One hundred and fourteen patient participants provided 219 photographs. Two ophthalmologists read 158 photographs and deemed 61% (97/158) interpretable, but GPs tended to accept more photographs for interpretation. General practitioners' diagnostic sensitivity and specificity was 87% and 95% respectively. Participating GPs were very positive about expanding their clinical role into DR screening.

DISCUSSION

General practice based DR screening was feasible and acceptable in the clinics studied, but photograph quality was an issue.