IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i23p15776-d985586.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“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

Author

Listed:
  • 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
    Author Deceased.)

  • 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)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Claire M. Zammit & Nicola S. Creagh & Tracey McDermott & Megan A. Smith & Dorothy A. Machalek & Chloe J. Jennett & Khic-Houy Prang & Farhana Sultana & Claire E. Nightingale & Nicole M. Rankin & Margar, 2022. "“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 Screenin," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-13, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:23:p:15776-:d:985586
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/23/15776/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/23/15776/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:23:p:15776-:d:985586. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.