Literature DB >> 29595751

How does information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening alter the intention to be screened?: a randomized survey of Norwegian women.

Anita L Iyer1, M Kate Bundorf2, Dorte Gyrd-Hansen3, Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert4, Pascale-Renée Cyr1, Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen1.   

Abstract

Cervical cancer (CC) is the 13th most frequent cancer among women in Norway, but the third most common among women aged 25-49 years. The national screening program sends information letters to promote screening participation. We aimed to evaluate how women's stated intention to participate in screening and pursue treatment changed with the provision of additional information on harms associated with screening, and to assess women's preferences on the timing and source of such information. We administered a web-based questionnaire to a panel of Norwegian women aged 25-69 years and randomized into three groups on the basis of when in the screening process additional information was introduced: (i) invited for routine screening, (ii) recommended an additional test following detection of cellular abnormalities, and (iii) recommended precancer treatment. A fourth (control) group did not receive any additional information. Results show that among 1060 respondents, additional information did not significantly alter women's stated intentions to screen. However, it created decision uncertainty on when treatment was recommended (8.76-9.09 vs. 9.40; 10-point Likert scale; P=0.004). Over 80% of women favored receiving information on harms and 59% preferred that information come from a qualified public health authority. Nearly 90% of women in all groups overestimated women's lifetime risk of CC. In conclusion, additional information on harms did not alter Norwegian women's stated intention to screen for CC; yet, it resulted in greater decision uncertainty to undergo precancer treatment. Incorporating information on harms into invitation letters is warranted as it would increase women's ability to make informed choices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 29595751      PMCID: PMC6160367          DOI: 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000436

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev        ISSN: 0959-8278            Impact factor:   2.497


  27 in total

Review 1.  Informed choice for screening: implications for evaluation.

Authors:  Les Irwig; Kirsten McCaffery; Glenn Salkeld; Patrick Bossuyt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-05-13

Review 2.  Pregnancy outcome following loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gong Jin; Zhang LanLan; Chen Li; Zhang Dan
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2013-07-11       Impact factor: 2.344

3.  Cervical cancer prevented by screening: Long-term incidence trends by morphology in Norway.

Authors:  Stefan Lönnberg; Bo Terning Hansen; Tor Haldorsen; Suzanne Campbell; Kristina Schee; Mari Nygård
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2015-04-11       Impact factor: 7.396

4.  The cervical cancer screening programme in Norway, 1992-2000: changes in Pap smear coverage and incidence of cervical cancer.

Authors:  J F Nygård; G B Skare; S Ø Thoresen
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.136

5.  Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Margaret R E McCredie; Katrina J Sharples; Charlotte Paul; Judith Baranyai; Gabriele Medley; Ronald W Jones; David C G Skegg
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2008-04-11       Impact factor: 41.316

6.  Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in Norway.

Authors:  E A Burger; J D Ortendahl; S Sy; I S Kristiansen; J J Kim
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Psychological effects of a low-grade abnormal cervical smear test result: anxiety and associated factors.

Authors:  N M Gray; L Sharp; S C Cotton; L F Masson; J Little; L G Walker; M Avis; Z Philips; I Russell; D Whynes; M Cruickshank; C M Woolley
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-05-08       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Effects of numerical information on intention to participate in cervical screening among women offered HPV vaccination: a randomised study.

Authors:  Mie Sara Hestbech; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Jakob Kragstrup; Volkert Siersma; John Brodersen
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 2.581

Review 9.  Methods to increase participation in organised screening programs: a systematic review.

Authors:  Laura Camilloni; Eliana Ferroni; Beatriz Jimenez Cendales; Annamaria Pezzarossi; Giacomo Furnari; Piero Borgia; Gabriella Guasticchi; Paolo Giorgi Rossi
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Does the primary screening test influence women's anxiety and intention to screen for cervical cancer? A randomized survey of Norwegian women.

Authors:  Emily A Burger; Mari Nygård; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Tron Anders Moger; Ivar Sonbo Kristiansen
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2014-04-15       Impact factor: 3.295

View more
  1 in total

1.  Providing more balanced information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening: A randomized survey among US and Norwegian women.

Authors:  P R Cyr; K Pedersen; A L Iyer; M K Bundorf; J D Goldhaber-Fiebert; D Gyrd-Hansen; I S Kristiansen; E A Burger
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2021-06-23
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.