PINCS-1: protocol for a feasibility study investigating the acceptability and accuracy of cervical screening and self-sampling in women at 6-weeks postnatal
Cullimore, V. A.; Newhouse, R.; Baker-Rand, H.; Brentnall, A.; Chu, K.; Denton, K.; McWilliams, L.; Sargent, A.; Sundar, S.; Crosbie, E. J.; Morrison, J.
Show abstract
IntroductionCervical screening rates in the UK are falling, limiting our ability to prevent cervical cancer. Peak incidence of cervical cancer coincides with average age of childbirth and women with young children are less likely to be screened. Current guidelines advise waiting 12-weeks after delivery to perform cervical screening, but this recommendation is not based on evidence from the era of liquid-based cytology (LBC) or high-risk Human Papilloma Virus (hrHPV) testing. New mums suggested that cervical screening could be offered at 6-weeks post-delivery, in conjunction with the postnatal check-up with the general practice team in primary care. Methods and analysisA study of 100 participants will be performed to assess feasibility and acceptability of cervical screening at 6- and 12-weeks postnatal, with urine self-sampling at each time point. This will inform whether women are prepared to undergo cervical screening at 6-weeks postnatal and feasibility of a future pair-wise diagnostic test accuracy study, or whether alternative study designs are needed. At each appointment, participants will complete a questionnaire about their experience and thoughts regarding screening. Sub-studies ask participants who withdraw or decline their reasons, to identify barriers. The study will move to a second phase, when 100 participants will be individually randomised to sampling at 6-weeks or 12-weeks, once 100 participants have completed the 6-week screen in PINCS-1, or recruitment is poor, indicating that a paired-sample design is not feasible. Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for PINCS-1 was given by the Stanmore Research Ethics Committee. The results, including participant feedback at each stage, will inform design of large studies to determine accuracy and clinical impact of cervical screening at 6-weeks postnatal, identifying whether giving choice will improve screening uptake. Data will inform sample size needed for future studies to have adequate power. Results will also inform future NHS Cervical Screening Programme management. Results will be shared via scientific publication and via conventional and social media channels accessed by young women. Strengths and limitations of PINCS-1O_ST_ABSStrengthsC_ST_ABSO_LIThe first study to focus on acceptability and reliability of screening, including self-sampling in postnatal women, to test hypothesis and generate data to inform further study design, following recommendations by Elridge et al.1 C_LIO_LIMultiple points at which acceptability will be assessed by collecting participants views and participant-reported outcomes. C_LIO_LIOffering self-screening at the time of another appointment was a successful strategy in the YouScreen study.2 C_LI LimitationsO_LIThis study has a limited sample size and is not statistically powered to evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy or the impact of offering screening during postnatal visits on overall screening uptake C_LIO_LIScreening will be performed in secondary care settings throughout this study. However, anticipated changes to screening would be expected to be relevant to primary care in the future studies. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Understanding preferences for self-sampling in a national cervical screening programme: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment 96%
- Acceptability of extending HPV-based cervical screening intervals from 3 to 5 years: An interview study with women in England 95%
- Improving experience of medical abortion at home in a changing therapeutic, technological and regulatory landscape: a realist review 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- A community-based mentoring scheme for pregnant and parenting adolescents in Sierra Leone: protocol for a hybrid pilot cluster randomised controlled trial 94%
- Experiences of HPV self-collection among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and people with a cervix 94%
- Population birth outcomes in 2020 and experiences of expectant mothers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a ‘Born in Wales’ mixed methods study using routine data 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Women’s knowledge, attitudes and views of preconception health and intervention delivery methods: A cross-sectional survey 94%
- What are the mechanisms of effect of group antenatal care? A systematic realist review and synthesis of the literature 93%
- Giving birth in a Pandemic: Women’s Birth Experiences in England during COVID-19 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Human Papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing among un- and under-screened Māori, Pasifika, and Asian women in Aotearoa New Zealand: a preference survey among responders and interviews with clinical-trial non-responders 96%
- A qualitative study investigating the acceptability of cervical screening and self-sampling in postnatal women at 6-week postnatal check-up 94%
- “I don’t know what to do or where to go”. Experiences of accessing healthcare support from the perspectives of people living with Long Covid and healthcare professionals: A qualitative study in Bradford, UK 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- A mixed methods study of attitudes on location of gynaecological oncology outpatient care: a patient and healthcare professional questionnaire 93%
- Family-centered postnatal training and adherence to newborn care practices in district hospitals in two Indian states: A quasi-experimental intervention study 92%
- Evaluating the impact of an enhanced support implementation of the PReCePT (PRevention of Cerebral palsy in Pre-Term labour) quality improvement toolkit to increase the uptake of magnesium sulphate in pre-term deliveries for the prevention of neurodisabilities: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.