The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2021
Australian National Cervical Screening Program renewal: Attitudes and experiences of general practitioners, and obstetricians and gynaecologists.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Obermair Helena M, Bennett Kirsty F, Brotherton Julia M L, Smith Megan A, McCaffery Kirsten J, Dodd Rachael H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) implemented five-yearly primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening for women aged 25-74. It is important that clinicians are able to explain the NCSP changes to women and confidently address concerns.
AIMS: This study examined Australian clinicians' attitudes toward and experiences of the NCSP renewal since its implementation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of clinicians (general practitioners, obstetricians and gynaecologists) involved in cervical screening, distributed two years after implementation of the renewed NCSP. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Six hundred and seven participants completed the survey. More than 80% of clinicians were comfortable with the main NCSP changes: extended screening intervals, increased age of first screening, and screening test used. However, only 47% of clinicians reported having utilised the National Cancer Screening Register, and a third of clinicians did not believe that self-collection was a reasonable alternative to practitioner-collected screening for under-screened women. Increased demands for colposcopy were reported. All clinicians identified at least one area of educational need, including the management of women with a history of screen-detected abnormalities in the previous program (34.9%), post-colposcopy management for women with no abnormalities detected (25.5%), and screening in complex scenarios (eg immunocompromise) (26.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, Australian clinicians are comfortable with the main changes to the cervical screening program. Certain areas may require further policy review, such as screening in complex clinical scenarios, colposcopy availability, accessibility of the Register and self-collection. These issues could be meaningful for other countries switching to HPV-based screening.
AIMS: This study examined Australian clinicians' attitudes toward and experiences of the NCSP renewal since its implementation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of clinicians (general practitioners, obstetricians and gynaecologists) involved in cervical screening, distributed two years after implementation of the renewed NCSP. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Six hundred and seven participants completed the survey. More than 80% of clinicians were comfortable with the main NCSP changes: extended screening intervals, increased age of first screening, and screening test used. However, only 47% of clinicians reported having utilised the National Cancer Screening Register, and a third of clinicians did not believe that self-collection was a reasonable alternative to practitioner-collected screening for under-screened women. Increased demands for colposcopy were reported. All clinicians identified at least one area of educational need, including the management of women with a history of screen-detected abnormalities in the previous program (34.9%), post-colposcopy management for women with no abnormalities detected (25.5%), and screening in complex scenarios (eg immunocompromise) (26.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, Australian clinicians are comfortable with the main changes to the cervical screening program. Certain areas may require further policy review, such as screening in complex clinical scenarios, colposcopy availability, accessibility of the Register and self-collection. These issues could be meaningful for other countries switching to HPV-based screening.