The Role of Self-Collection in Optimising Cervical Screening for People With Intellectual Disability: A Multi Perspective Qualitative Study.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Lauren Winkler, Rosalie Power, Kimberley R Allison, Iva Strnadová, Allison Carter, Jane Ussher, Heather Jolly, Caroline Basckin, Sally Sweeney, Julie Loblinzk, Deborah Bateson
{"title":"The Role of Self-Collection in Optimising Cervical Screening for People With Intellectual Disability: A Multi Perspective Qualitative Study.","authors":"Lauren Winkler, Rosalie Power, Kimberley R Allison, Iva Strnadová, Allison Carter, Jane Ussher, Heather Jolly, Caroline Basckin, Sally Sweeney, Julie Loblinzk, Deborah Bateson","doi":"10.1111/hex.70920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence on whether self-collection addresses inequities in cervical screening participation for people with intellectual disability is limited. This study explored how self-collection is understood by people with intellectual disability and those in their support and healthcare networks and factors that support or hinder access.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with four participant groups in New South Wales. This analysis reports on participants who discussed self-collection (n = 59) within a broader interview study (N = 66): people with intellectual disability (n = 9); family members and support people (n = 12); managers/leaders in disability organisations and private disability services (n = 19) and healthcare professionals (n = 19). Interviews used trauma-informed and accessible methods and were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis within a co-production framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three themes captured participants' perspectives: (1) Reclaiming bodily autonomy: self-collection restored decision-making power by allowing people to collect their own vaginal sample or choose and guide a trusted healthcare professional to assist (2) Safety, trust, and freedom from harm: Self-collection was perceived as less invasive than a speculum examination and supported safer participation for those with healthcare anxiety or trauma (3) Structural inequities and ableist gatekeeping: Limited confidence with self-sampling, ableist assumptions, clinician-centred pathways, and uncertainty around support roles constrained access.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Self-collection offers important opportunities to improve cervical screening participation for people with intellectual disability but requires multisectoral reforms including accessible sexual and reproductive health education and screening information informed by lived experience, trauma-informed and rights-based training across health and disability workforces and alternative screening models for safer home-based self-collection. These changes are essential to realise the reproductive autonomy and safety of people with intellectual disability and ensure meaningful progress towards equitable cervical cancer elimination.</p><p><strong>Patient or public contribution: </strong>People with intellectual disability were involved throughout the study as co-researchers, advisors, and active research participants. An Advisory Group including two members with intellectual disability, with support from their designated support person, informed the study design, recruitment strategies, accessible methods, and interpretation of findings, with pre- and post-meeting support to ensure meaningful and safe participation. The study adhered to principles of the inclusive research framework, 'Doing Research Inclusively: Guidelines for Co-Producing Research with People with Disability' whereby all study materials, consent processes, and interviews used multimodal and accessible formats such as Easy Read, video, visual supports and body-mapping and were trauma-informed. Study findings were translated into accessible cervical screening resources by partnering with people with intellectual disability in the community, including people living in regional areas, in the planning, creation and feedback of the resources. These methods of inclusive research supported rapid translation of study findings into practical resources with potential for rapid scale-up through Australia's National Cervical Screening Program, to support equitable access to cervical screening by people with intellectual disability.</p>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"29 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13696019/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70920","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Evidence on whether self-collection addresses inequities in cervical screening participation for people with intellectual disability is limited. This study explored how self-collection is understood by people with intellectual disability and those in their support and healthcare networks and factors that support or hinder access.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with four participant groups in New South Wales. This analysis reports on participants who discussed self-collection (n = 59) within a broader interview study (N = 66): people with intellectual disability (n = 9); family members and support people (n = 12); managers/leaders in disability organisations and private disability services (n = 19) and healthcare professionals (n = 19). Interviews used trauma-informed and accessible methods and were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis within a co-production framework.

Results: Three themes captured participants' perspectives: (1) Reclaiming bodily autonomy: self-collection restored decision-making power by allowing people to collect their own vaginal sample or choose and guide a trusted healthcare professional to assist (2) Safety, trust, and freedom from harm: Self-collection was perceived as less invasive than a speculum examination and supported safer participation for those with healthcare anxiety or trauma (3) Structural inequities and ableist gatekeeping: Limited confidence with self-sampling, ableist assumptions, clinician-centred pathways, and uncertainty around support roles constrained access.

Conclusions: Self-collection offers important opportunities to improve cervical screening participation for people with intellectual disability but requires multisectoral reforms including accessible sexual and reproductive health education and screening information informed by lived experience, trauma-informed and rights-based training across health and disability workforces and alternative screening models for safer home-based self-collection. These changes are essential to realise the reproductive autonomy and safety of people with intellectual disability and ensure meaningful progress towards equitable cervical cancer elimination.

Patient or public contribution: People with intellectual disability were involved throughout the study as co-researchers, advisors, and active research participants. An Advisory Group including two members with intellectual disability, with support from their designated support person, informed the study design, recruitment strategies, accessible methods, and interpretation of findings, with pre- and post-meeting support to ensure meaningful and safe participation. The study adhered to principles of the inclusive research framework, 'Doing Research Inclusively: Guidelines for Co-Producing Research with People with Disability' whereby all study materials, consent processes, and interviews used multimodal and accessible formats such as Easy Read, video, visual supports and body-mapping and were trauma-informed. Study findings were translated into accessible cervical screening resources by partnering with people with intellectual disability in the community, including people living in regional areas, in the planning, creation and feedback of the resources. These methods of inclusive research supported rapid translation of study findings into practical resources with potential for rapid scale-up through Australia's National Cervical Screening Program, to support equitable access to cervical screening by people with intellectual disability.

自我收集在优化智障人士子宫颈筛查中的作用:一项多视角定性研究。
背景:关于自我收集是否解决智障人士参与子宫颈筛查中的不公平问题的证据有限。本研究探讨了智障人士及其支持和医疗网络中的人如何理解自我收集,以及支持或阻碍自我收集的因素。方法:对新南威尔士州的四个参与者组进行半结构化访谈。本分析报告了在更广泛的访谈研究(n = 66)中讨论自我收集的参与者(n = 59):智力残疾者(n = 9);家庭成员和支持人员(n = 12);残疾组织和私人残疾服务机构的经理/领导(n = 19)和医疗保健专业人员(n = 19)。访谈采用了创伤知情和可获得的方法,并在联合制作框架内使用反身性主题分析进行了分析。结果:三个主题捕获了参与者的观点:(1)恢复身体自主权:自我收集通过允许人们收集自己的阴道样本或选择和指导可信赖的医疗专业人员协助恢复决策权(2)安全,信任和免受伤害的自由;自我收集被认为比镜检侵入性更小,并支持那些有医疗焦虑或创伤的人更安全地参与(3)结构不平等和健康主义者把关:自我抽样的有限信心,健康主义者的假设,以临床医生为中心的途径,以及支持角色的不确定性限制了访问。结论:自我收集为提高智力残疾者参与子宫颈筛查提供了重要机会,但需要多部门改革,包括可获得的性健康和生殖健康教育和基于生活经验的筛查信息、卫生和残疾工作人员的创伤知情和基于权利的培训,以及更安全的家庭自我收集的替代筛查模式。这些变化对于实现智力残疾者的生殖自主和安全以及确保在公平消除子宫颈癌方面取得有意义的进展至关重要。患者或公众贡献:智障人士作为共同研究人员、顾问和积极的研究参与者参与了整个研究。由两名智障人士组成的咨询小组,在其指定的支持人员的支持下,告知研究设计、招募策略、无障碍方法和结果解释,并提供会前和会后支持,以确保有意义和安全的参与。该研究遵循了包容性研究框架的原则,“包容性研究:与残疾人共同开展研究的指导方针”,其中所有的研究材料、同意过程和访谈都使用了多模式和可访问的格式,如易读、视频、视觉支持和身体映射,并了解了创伤。通过与社区智力残疾者(包括生活在区域地区的人)合作,规划、创建和反馈资源,将研究结果转化为可获取的子宫颈筛查资源。这些包容性研究方法支持将研究结果快速转化为实际资源,并有可能通过澳大利亚国家子宫颈筛查计划迅速扩大规模,以支持智障人士公平获得子宫颈筛查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书