‘ <i>Why Didn't I Get That Choice?’</i> : A Qualitative Exploration of How Cervical Screening Choices Are Understood and Experienced by Screen‐Eligible People in Australia, Two Years After Self‐Collection Became an Option for All
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Australia's human papillomavirus (HPV)-based National Cervical Screening Program guidelines state that anyone eligible for screening should be offered a choice of using self-collection or clinician collection for initial screening. AIM: To explore the awareness and experiences of women and people with a cervix who have been screened since this choice became available in July 2022. METHODS: Semi-structured online or telephone interviews were conducted between February and May 2024 with 43 Victorian women and people with a cervix, aged 25-74 years. All participants self-reported completing a cervical screen within 12 months of our study. Interview data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed before being mapped to The Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Self-reported screening history was confirmed with de-identified data from the National Cancer Screening Register (NCSR) Victorian Raw Data Extract (November 2024). RESULTS: Fewer than half (19, 44%) of those interviewed were given a choice at their most recent screen, with variation in how options were presented by healthcare providers. Participants felt they lacked awareness and knowledge to feel confident in their options. Most participants viewed having a choice as important and, even if they did not prefer self-collection for themselves, noted benefits for others. Some felt disappointed or angry about not having a choice, while others were happy to defer to their doctor. Relationships with, and the views of, healthcare providers strongly influenced decision-making. Participants reflected on potential advantages of self-collection if it could reduce the cost of appointments and be accessed in more flexible ways. Among the 38 participants who consented to screening history verification, the self-reported data showed reasonable accuracy (67%) against the NCSR. CONCLUSION: Despite a clear policy directive for practitioners to offer a choice to all eligible individuals, many recent screeners were not offered the choice or lacked the knowledge, confidence and decision supports needed to make an informed choice. The choice of screening method appears strongly influenced by if, and how, options are presented by healthcare providers. A range of strategies are needed to ensure screeners feel empowered, supported and informed to make and carry out a real choice. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of the public were involved in interviews. Findings were summarised and disseminated via a short report. A consumer advisory panel provided feedback on the content, readability and length of all patient-facing resources.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».