Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2024 Sep;29(3):788-813.
doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12727. Epub 2024 May 17.

Trust in cervical screening and attributions of blame for interval cancers following a national controversy

Olga Poluektova  1   2 , Deirdre A Robertson  1   3 , Alexandros Papadopoulos  1 , Peter D Lunn  1   4
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Trust in cervical screening and attributions of blame for interval cancers following a national controversy

Olga Poluektova et al. Br J Health Psychol. 2024 Sep.

Abstract

Objectives: This study investigated levels of trust and attributions of blame in connection with a cervical screening programme following a controversy related to the programme's audit, incorporating an experimental test of the effectiveness of new information materials.

Design: We compared responses in Ireland (N = 872) to equivalent responses in Scotland (N = 400). Participants in Ireland were randomly assigned to either a treatment group that received the information materials or a control group that did not. Participants then responded to questions about their trust in cervical screening and to whom they would attribute blame in a range of scenarios describing women diagnosed with cervical cancer between screening rounds.

Results: Results showed that the control group in Ireland had lower trust and attributed higher blame towards screening services than participants in Scotland. However, exposure to information materials in the treatment group improved trust and reduced blame.

Conclusions: The findings suggest that public controversies influence perceptions of screening programmes and underscore the importance of transparent, choice-based communication in mitigating these effects. The findings have valuable implications for screening services worldwide as all screening programmes will have associated false negative and false positive results.

Keywords: attributions of blame; cervical screening; false negative and false positive results; interval cancers; public health controversy; trust.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Central Statistics Office. (2021). Satisfaction with Public Services. https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/fp/fp‐trus/trustsurveydece...
    1. Fitzpatrick, P., Mooney, T., Byrne, H., Healy, O., Russell, N., & O'Reilly, S. (2022). Interval cancer audit and disclosure in cervical screening programmes: An international survey. Journal of Medical Screening, 29(2), 104–109.
    1. Gilbert, C. (2022). To blame is human: A quantitative systematic review of the relationship between outcome severity of large‐scale crises and attributions of blame. Risk Analysis, 42(9), 1980–1998. https://doi.org/10.1111/RISA.13847
    1. Health Service Executive (HSE). (2022). Final Scally Progress Review. HSE. https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/media/pressrel/final‐scally‐progres...
    1. International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2023). Best practices in cervical screening programmes: Audit of cancers, legal and ethical frameworks, communication, and workforce competencies.

Publication types