Pre-Procedural Anxiety and Associated Factors Among Women Seeking for Cervical Cancer Screening Services in Shenzhen, China: Does Past Screening Experience Matter?

Wei Lin, Weikang Huang, Chaofan Mei, Chuyan Zhong, Leilei Zhu, Peiyi Liu, Shixin Yuan, Zhihua Liu, Yueyun Wang
Author Information
  1. Wei Lin: Department of Healthcare, Affiliated Shenzhen Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
  2. Weikang Huang: Research Team of Cervical Cancer Prevention Project in Shenzhen, Affiliated Shenzhen Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
  3. Chaofan Mei: Research Team of Cervical Cancer Prevention Project in Shenzhen, Affiliated Shenzhen Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
  4. Chuyan Zhong: Research Team of Cervical Cancer Prevention Project in Shenzhen, Affiliated Shenzhen Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
  5. Leilei Zhu: Research Team of Cervical Cancer Prevention Project in Shenzhen, Affiliated Shenzhen Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
  6. Peiyi Liu: Research Team of Cervical Cancer Prevention Project in Shenzhen, Affiliated Shenzhen Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
  7. Shixin Yuan: Research Team of Cervical Cancer Prevention Project in Shenzhen, Affiliated Shenzhen Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
  8. Zhihua Liu: Research Team of Cervical Cancer Prevention Project in Shenzhen, Affiliated Shenzhen Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
  9. Yueyun Wang: Department of Healthcare, Affiliated Shenzhen Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.

Abstract

Background: Research gaps exist in addressing the psychological harm related to the cervical cancer screening. Anxiety is the most common distress driven by the screening procedures, which may be affected by past screening experience (PSE) but with uncertainty. This study aimed to evaluate the pre-procedural anxiety in cervical cancer screening and to identify the influence attributed to PSE.
Methods: A cross-sectional survey targeted women seeking for cervical cancer screening services was conducted from June 5th to December 31st, 2020 in Shenzhen. The 20-item state anxiety scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S) was applied to measure pre-procedural anxiety, in which a score of 40 or higher was regarded with anxiety symptom. Logistic regression models were established to explore potential associated factors of pre-procedural anxiety both for women with and without PSE.
Results: Overall, 3,651 women were enrolled, in which 36.1% had never been screened and the remaining 63.9% had been screened at least once before. Women without PSE demonstrated more prevalent pre-procedural anxiety (74.5% vs. 67.8%, P <0.001) than their experienced counterparts. Among women without PSE, having heard of cervical cancer screening was associated with a lower likelihood of pre-procedural anxiety (OR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.25~0.56). Among experienced women, participating three or more times screening was negatively associated with anxiety symptom (OR: 0.67, 95%CI: 0.53~0.84), however, both receiving screening within three years (OR: 1.58, 95%CI: 1.27~1.97) and unknowing previous screening results (OR: 1.42, 95%CI: 1.11~1.82) increased the susceptibility of pre-procedural anxiety.
Conclusions: Women participating in cervical cancer screening commonly present pre-procedural anxiety. The association between PSE and pre-procedural anxiety may be influenced by past screening times, interval, and results. Psychological counseling according to women's PSE before cervical cancer screening is warranted of necessity.

Keywords

References

  1. Int J Cancer. 2020 Apr 15;146(8):2113-2121 [PMID: 31251820]
  2. BJOG. 2016 Jan;123(1):24-38 [PMID: 26099164]
  3. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015 Dec;131(3):297-300 [PMID: 26386494]
  4. Cancer. 2017 Oct 15;123(20):3882-3894 [PMID: 28833054]
  5. BJOG. 2012 Jul;119(8):936-44 [PMID: 22568482]
  6. Lancet. 2019 Jan 12;393(10167):169-182 [PMID: 30638582]
  7. Psychooncology. 2008 Dec;17(12):1180-8 [PMID: 18506670]
  8. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jan 03;3(1):e1919940 [PMID: 31995213]
  9. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004 Apr;13(4):501-10 [PMID: 15066912]
  10. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2018 Jun;24(3, BEHAVIORAL NEUROLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY):893-919 [PMID: 29851884]
  11. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Oct;128(4):e111-e130 [PMID: 27661651]
  12. BMC Cancer. 2022 Mar 1;22(1):223 [PMID: 35232405]
  13. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(7):4053-6 [PMID: 23991951]
  14. Sex Transm Infect. 2020 May;96(3):166-172 [PMID: 32001660]
  15. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Oct;189(4):1136-42 [PMID: 14586367]
  16. Womens Health Issues. 2001 Mar-Apr;11(2):110-5 [PMID: 11275514]
  17. Lancet. 2007 Sep 8;370(9590):890-907 [PMID: 17826171]
  18. Prev Med. 2017 Feb;95:96-102 [PMID: 27932055]
  19. Trop Med Int Health. 2019 Sep;24(9):1054-1063 [PMID: 31264319]
  20. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007 Spring;23(2):240-7 [PMID: 17493310]
  21. J Affect Disord. 2021 Sep 1;292:552-558 [PMID: 34147967]
  22. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2010;11(2):495-8 [PMID: 20843139]
  23. J BUON. 2017 Jan-Feb;22(1):214-223 [PMID: 28365957]
  24. Int J Cancer. 2019 Jul 1;145(1):29-39 [PMID: 30549273]
  25. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 Dec;113(12):1810-1818 [PMID: 30385831]
  26. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Sep;70(5):321-346 [PMID: 32729638]
  27. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2018 Jul;22(3):178-183 [PMID: 29672447]
  28. Front Public Health. 2020 May 27;8:236 [PMID: 32574305]
  29. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2012 Jul;21(4):469-76 [PMID: 22129200]
  30. BMJ Open. 2018 Dec 22;8(12):e025109 [PMID: 30580275]
  31. JMIR Cancer. 2019 May 13;5(1):e9798 [PMID: 31094335]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0screeninganxietypre-proceduralcervicalcancerPSEwomenOR:095%CI:1AnxietypastassociatedwithoutWomenAmongpsychologicalharmmayexperienceShenzhensymptomscreened67experiencedparticipatingthreetimesresultsScreeningBackground:ResearchgapsexistaddressingrelatedcommondistressdrivenproceduresaffecteduncertaintystudyaimedevaluateidentifyinfluenceattributedMethods:cross-sectionalsurveytargetedseekingservicesconductedJune5thDecember31st202020-itemstatescaleState-TraitInventorySTAI-Sappliedmeasurescore40higherregardedLogisticregressionmodelsestablishedexplorepotentialfactorsResults:Overall3651enrolled361%neverremaining639%leastdemonstratedprevalent745%vs8%P<0001counterpartsheardlowerlikelihood3725~056negatively53~084howeverreceivingwithinyears5827~197unknowingprevious4211~182increasedsusceptibilityConclusions:commonlypresentassociationinfluencedintervalPsychologicalcounselingaccordingwomen'swarrantednecessityPre-ProceduralAssociatedFactorsSeekingCervicalCancerServicesChina:PastExperienceMatter?associatedfactor

Similar Articles

Cited By