Exploring reasons for variations in anxiety after testing positive for human papillomavirus with normal cytology: a comparative qualitative study
- PMID: 32909308
- PMCID: PMC8436740
- DOI: 10.1002/pon.5540
Exploring reasons for variations in anxiety after testing positive for human papillomavirus with normal cytology: a comparative qualitative study
Abstract
Objective: To explore reasons for variations in anxiety in women testing positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) with normal cytology at routine HPV primary cervical cancer screening.
Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with 30 women who had tested HPV-positive with normal cytology, including 15 with low-to-normal anxiety and 15 with high anxiety. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis to compare themes between low and high anxiety groups.
Results: Several HPV-related themes were shared across anxiety groups, but only highly anxious women expressed fear and worry, fatalistic cognitions about cancer, fertility-related cognitions, adverse physiological responses and changes in health behaviour(s). In comparison to those with low anxiety, women with high anxiety more strongly voiced cognitions about the 12-month wait for follow-up screening, relationship infidelity, a lower internal locus of control and HPV-related symptom attributions.
Conclusions: Receiving an HPV-positive with normal cytology result related to various emotional, cognitive, behavioural and physiological responses; some of which were specific to, or more pronounced in, women with high anxiety. If our observations are confirmed in hypothesis-driven quantitative studies, the identification of distinct themes relevant to women experiencing high anxiety can inform targeted patient communications and HPV primary screening implementation policy.
Keywords: HPV; anxiety; cancer; cervical cancer; cervical screening; cytology; mental health; oncology; psycho-oncology; psychology.
© 2020 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Emily McBride conceived the study. Emily McBride and Selma Stearns collected the data. Emily McBride, Jo Waller, Laura A. V. Marlow and Kirsty F. Bennett analysed and interpreted the data. Emily McBride drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to the final version of the manuscript.
