Abstract
BackgroundCervical cancer disproportionately affects women ≥65 years, especially those not screened regularly. Speculum use is a key barrier.AimTo assess if offering non-speculum clinician-taken sampling and self-sampling increases uptake for lapsed attenders aged 50–64 years.Design and settingPragmatic randomised control trial conducted at 10 general practices in East London, UK.MethodParticipants were 784 women aged 50–64 years, last screened 6–15 years before randomisation. Intervention participants received a letter offering the choice of non-speculum clinician- or self-sampling. Control participants received usual care. The main outcome measure was uptake within 4 months.ResultsScreening uptake 4 months after randomisation was significantly higher in the intervention arm: 20.4% (n = 80/393) versus 4.9% in the control arm (n = 19/391, absolute difference 15.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.0% to 20.0%, P<0.001). This was maintained at 12 months: intervention 30.5% (n = 120/393) versus control 13.6% (n = 53/391) (absolute difference 17.0%, 95% CI = 11.3% to 22.7%, P<0.001). Conventional screening attendance within 12 months was very similar for both intervention 12.7% (n = 50/393) and control 13.6% (n = 53/391) arms. Ethnic differences were seen in screening modality preference. More White women opted for self-sampling (50.7%, n = 38/75), whereas most Asian and Black women and those from other ethnic backgrounds opted for conventional screening.ConclusionOffering non-speculum clinician-taken sampling and self-sampling substantially increases uptake in older lapsed attendee women. Non-speculum clinician sampling appeals to women who dislike the speculum but still prefer a clinician to take their sample. Providing a choice of screening modality may be important for optimising cervical screening uptake.
Publisher
Royal College of General Practitioners
Reference34 articles.
1. Prediction of cervical cancer incidence in England, UK, up to 2040, under four scenarios: a modelling study;Castanon;Lancet Public Health,2018
2. Hysterectomy-corrected cervical cancer mortality rates in Denmark during 2002–2015: a registry-based cohort study;Hammer;Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand,2019
3. Cervical cancer in women over 65: an analysis of screening;Yost;Gynecol Oncol Rep,2018
4. Cancer Research UK (2018) Cervical cancer mortality statistics, https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/cervical-cancer/mortality#heading-One (accessed 22 Oct 2021).
5. Cancer Research UK (2019) Cervical cancer incidence statistics. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/cervical-cancer/incidence#heading-One (accessed 22 Oct 2021).