1
|
Verbunt EJ, Newman G, Creagh NS, Milley KM, Emery JD, Kelaher MA, Rankin NM, Nightingale CE. Primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs: a systematic narrative review. Prim Health Care Res Dev 2024; 25:e12. [PMID: 38345096 PMCID: PMC10894721 DOI: 10.1017/s1463423623000713] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/15/2024] Open
Abstract
AIM To provide a systematic synthesis of primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs. BACKGROUND Globally, population-based cancer screening programs (bowel, breast, and cervical) have sub-optimal participation rates. Primary healthcare workers (PHCWs) have an important role in facilitating a patient's decision to screen; however, barriers exist to their engagement. It remains unclear how to best optimize the role of PHCWs to increase screening participation. METHODS A comprehensive search was conducted from January 2010 until November 2023 in the following databases: Medline (OVID), EMBASE, and CINAHL. Data extraction, quality assessment, and synthesis were conducted. Studies were separated by whether they assessed the effect of a single-component or multi-component intervention and study type. FINDINGS Forty-nine studies were identified, of which 36 originated from the USA. Fifteen studies were investigations of single-component interventions, and 34 studies were of multi-component interventions. Interventions with a positive effect on screening participation were predominantly multi-component, and most included combinations of audit and feedback, provider reminders, practice-facilitated assessment and improvement, and patient education across all screening programs. Regarding bowel screening, provision of screening kits at point-of-care was an effective strategy to increase participation. Taking a 'whole-of-practice approach' and identifying a 'practice champion' were found to be contextual factors of effective interventions.The findings suggest that complex interventions comprised of practitioner-focused and patient-focused components are required to increase cancer screening participation in primary care settings. This study provides novel understanding as to what components and contextual factors should be included in primary care practice-based interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ebony J Verbunt
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Grace Newman
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Nicola S Creagh
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Kristi M Milley
- Centre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Jon D Emery
- Centre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Margaret A Kelaher
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Nicole M Rankin
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Claire E Nightingale
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zammit CM, Creagh NS, McDermott T, Smith MA, Machalek DA, Jennett CJ, Prang KH, Sultana F, Nightingale CE, Rankin NM, Kelaher M, Brotherton JML. "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. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19:15776. [PMID: 36497850 PMCID: PMC9739016 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192315776] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2022] [Revised: 11/20/2022] [Accepted: 11/24/2022] [Indexed: 06/17/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire M. Zammit
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| | - Nicola S. Creagh
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| | - Tracey McDermott
- Australian Centre for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| | - Megan A. Smith
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW 2011, Australia
| | - Dorothy A. Machalek
- The Kirby Institute, Wallace Wurth Building, University of New South Wales Kensington, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
- Centre for Women’s Infectious Diseases, The Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia
| | - Chloe J. Jennett
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW 2011, Australia
| | - Khic-Houy Prang
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| | - Farhana Sultana
- National Cancer Screening Register, Telstra Health, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
| | - Claire E. Nightingale
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| | - Nicole M. Rankin
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| | - Margaret Kelaher
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| | - Julia M. L. Brotherton
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
- Australian Centre for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Creagh NS, Zammit C, Brotherton JM, Saville M, McDermott T, Nightingale C, Kelaher M. The experience of under-screened and never-screened participants using clinician-supported self-collection cervical screening within the Australian National Cervical Screening Program. Womens Health (Lond) 2022; 18:17455065221075905. [PMID: 35147064 PMCID: PMC8841921 DOI: 10.1177/17455065221075905] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola S Creagh
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Claire Zammit
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Julia Ml Brotherton
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,VCS Population Health, VCS Foundation, Carlton, VIC, Australia
| | - Marion Saville
- VCS Population Health, VCS Foundation, Carlton, VIC, Australia.,University Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Royal Women's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | | | - Claire Nightingale
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Margaret Kelaher
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Creagh NS, Zammit C, Brotherton JM, Saville M, McDermott T, Nightingale C, Kelaher M. Self-collection cervical screening in the renewed National Cervical Screening Program: a qualitative study. Med J Aust 2021; 215:354-358. [PMID: 34145591 DOI: 10.5694/mja2.51137] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2020] [Revised: 04/13/2021] [Accepted: 04/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola S Creagh
- Centre for Health Policy, School of Population and Global Health, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC
| | - Claire Zammit
- Centre for Health Policy, School of Population and Global Health, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.,VCS Foundation, Melbourne, VIC
| | - Julia Ml Brotherton
- Centre for Health Policy, School of Population and Global Health, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.,VCS Foundation, Melbourne, VIC
| | - Marion Saville
- VCS Foundation, Melbourne, VIC.,The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC
| | | | - Claire Nightingale
- Centre for Health Policy, School of Population and Global Health, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.,Monash University, Bendigo, VIC
| | - Margaret Kelaher
- Centre for Health Policy, School of Population and Global Health, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC
| |
Collapse
|