Intentions to participate in cervical and colorectal cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods study

  1. Rebecca Wilson
  2. Harriet Quinn-Scoggins
  3. Yvonne Moriarty
  4. Jacqueline Hughes
  5. Mark Goddard
  6. Rebecca Cannings-John
  7. Victoria Whitelock
  8. Katriina L. Whitaker
  9. Detelina Grozeva
  10. Julia Townson
  11. Kirstie Osborne
  12. Stephanie Smits
  13. Michael Robling
  14. Julie Hepburn
  15. Graham Moore
  16. Ardiana Gjini
  17. Kate Brain
  18. Jo Waller

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106826
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.20.21260558: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableFor this analysis, we used data from two sub-samples of survey respondents: women and people with a cervix aged 25-64 years (eligible for cervical screening) and people aged 60-74 years in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and age 50-74 in Scotland (eligible for CRC screening).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Study limitations and strengths: We recruited a large sample from across the UK and weighted data to be representative of the UK for age, gender, ethnicity and region. The data are cross-sectional, and caution must be exercised when interpreting the results. In addition, participants’ self-reported intentions might not translate into behaviour (30), although we used ‘yes, definitely’ to indicate positive intention which has demonstrated a strong association with screening behaviour (18). Intention to complete CRC screening was higher than population-level uptake, and may also reflect the high number of HealthWise Wales participants in the CRC cohort, who may be more health-motivated than the general population. (31) Sample selection bias may also explain high overall screening intentions, with limited power to detect the effects of factors expected to be associated with screening intentions such as education and ethnicity. Interview participants were sampled based on symptom experience (the primary study outcome), hence some were not eligible for screening and their responses were therefore hypothetical. Implications: The finding that past screening non-attendance was associated with lower future screening intention is not new, but it underlines the continued importance of interventions to reduce COVID and non-COVID screening barriers among non-participants, including women who have not attended cervical screening for COVID-related reasons. During August and September 2020 a ...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    ISRCTN17782018NANA

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.07.20.21260558v1 on medRxiv