To investigate the effects of different types of information about benefits and harms of cervical screening on intention to participate in screening among women in the first cohorts offered human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination.
Randomised survey study.
Denmark.
A random sample of women from the birth cohorts 1993, 1994 and 1995 drawn from the general population.
A web-based questionnaire and information intervention. We randomised potential respondents to one of the following four different information modules about benefits and harms of cervical screening: no information; non-numerical information; and two numerical information modules. Moreover, we provided HPV-vaccinated women in one of the arms with numerical information about benefits and harms in two steps: firstly, information without consideration of HPV vaccination and subsequently information conditional on HPV vaccination.
Self-reported intention to participate in cervical screening.
A significantly lower proportion intended to participate in screening in the two groups of women receiving numerical information compared to controls with absolute differences of 10.5 (95% CI: 3.3-17.6) and 7.7 (95% CI: 0.4-14.9) percentage points, respectively. Among HPV-vaccinated women, we found a significantly lower intention to participate in screening after numerical information specific to vaccinated women (OR of 0.38).
Women are sensitive to numerical information about the benefits and harms of cervical screening. Specifically, our results suggest that HPV-vaccinated women are sensitive to information about the expected changes in benefits and harms of cervical screening after implementation of HPV vaccination. KEY POINTS Women were less likely to participate in cervical screening when they received numerical information about benefits and harms compared to non-numerical or no information. Specifically, numerical information about the potential impact of the reduced risk of cervical cancer among HPV-vaccinated women reduced the intention to participate among vaccinated women.
Notes
Cites: Am J Health Behav. 2013 May;37(3):351-923985182
Cites: J R Soc Med. 2016 Jul;109 (7):274-8127118696
Cites: BMJ. 2006 May 13;332(7550):1148-5016690676
Cites: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005 Jul-Aug;15(4):639-4516014118
Cites: Scand J Public Health. 2011 Jul;39(7 Suppl):22-521775345
Cites: BMJ Open. 2015 Aug 14;5(8):e00792126275901
Cites: Qual Life Res. 2003 May;12 (3):229-3812769135
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2014 Aug 19;161(4):270-8025133362
Cites: Br J Gen Pract. 2003 Aug;53(493):620-514601338