Rebolj, Matejka
,
Brentnall, Adam R.
Mathews, Christopher
Denton, Karin
Holbrook, Miles
Levine, Tanya
Sargent, Alexandra
Smith, John
Tidy, John
Tyler, Xenia
Kitchener, Henry
Funding for this research was provided by:
Cancer Research UK (C8162/A16892, C8162/A16892)
Partly funded through Public Health England.
Article History
Received: 16 May 2019
Revised: 19 July 2019
Accepted: 24 July 2019
First Online: 14 August 2019
Competing interests
: M.R.: PHE provided financing for the epidemiological evaluation; attended meetings with various HPV assay manufacturers; fee for lecture from Hologic paid to employer. C.M.: Partly funded by PHE that provided financing for the epidemiological evaluation. K.D. has received speaker fees and travel expenses to attend meetings from Hologic. M.H., T.L., X.T.: PHE provided funding to support the NHS screening laboratory activity for the pilot. A.S.: Attended meetings with HPV assay manufacturers; speaker fees from Roche; travel and accommodation from Roche for training and from Abbott for user group meeting; Roche, Abbott, Hologic, Becton Dickinson and Cepheid provided kits for assay validation purposes; PHE provided funding to support the NHS screening laboratory activity for the pilot. J.S.: Personal speaker bureau fees from Beckton Dickinson; personal medical advisory board fees from Zilico. J.T.: Fees for lectures from Roche, Qiagen and Hologic; conference registration, accommodation and travel from Sanofi Pasteur; consultancy fees and shareholder in Zilico; patent for electrical impedance spectroscopy in detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia with Zilico. H.K.: Chair of the Advisory Committee for Cervical Screening (PHE), but the views expressed in this manuscript are those of the author and do not represent the view of PHE. A.R.B. declares no competing interests.
: Women participating in the HPV primary screening pilot were invited to make an informed choice on participating in the cervical screening programme. A decision is made to accept or decline a screening test based on access to accurate and up-to-date information on the condition being screened for, the testing process and potential outcomes. Specific information was provided at the invitation stage allowing for personalised informed choice. There was further opportunity to reflect on what the test and its results might mean when they attended for screening with the clinician taking the sample. Regulation 5, Health Service Regulations 2002, Confidentiality Advisory Group Reference: 15/CAG/0207, was the legal basis to process the data.
: The funding for the pilot and the epidemiological evaluation thereof was provided by PHE. PHE had a role in designing the pilot; in the collection of the data; and commented on the manuscript. M.R. and H.K. made the final decision to submit. M.R. and (partly) C.M. were funded through Cancer Research UK, grant number C8162/A16892. A.R.B. was funded through Cancer Research UK, grant number C569/A16891.
: Not applicable.
: No additional unpublished data are available from the authors. Requests for access to data should be made to Public Health England, Office for Data Release.