Table 6. Content analysis of open-ended questions.
| Question number and content(number of responses) | Opinions and perspectives | n (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Q22 COVID-19 to encourage/facilitate/accelerate implementation of HPV self-sampling in cervical cancer screening programs, briefly justify your answer (n=206) |
Favorable approach | 85 (41.3) |
| Not favorable | 18 (8.7) | |
| Challenges faced* | 47 (22.8) | |
| Not familiar with HPV self-sampling† | 30 (14.6) | |
| ‘No comment’ written | 6 (2.9) | |
| Don’t know | 12 (5.8) | |
| Unclear answer | 8 (3.9) | |
| Q23 In favor of implementing HPV self-sampling as alternative screening method in practice, briefly justify your answer (n=197) |
Favorable approach | 80 (40.1) |
| Not favorable | 12 (6.1) | |
| Challenges described* | 29 (14.7) | |
| Not familiar with HPV self-sampling† | 60 (30.5) | |
| ‘No comment’ written | 2 (1.0) | |
| Don’t know | 4 (2.0) | |
| Unclear answer | 10 (5.1) | |
| Q47 Appropriate interactions to convert to telemedicine, other (n=5) |
All of the above, but not in all cases | 1 (20.0) |
| Counselling and family meetings | 1 (20.0) | |
| Research-related activities | 1 (20.0) | |
| Follow-up any issues | 1 (20.0) | |
| Discuss treatment options | 1 (20.0) | |
| Q52 Duration of service interruption in practice/institution due to pandemic, before resumption (n=421) | No interruption | 47 (11.2) |
| <1 month | 41 (9.7) | |
| 1 month to <2 months | 51 (12.1) | |
| 2 months to <4 months | 104 (24.7) | |
| 4 months to <6 months | 47 (11.2) | |
| >6 months | 55 (13.1) | |
| Don’t know | 5 (1.2) | |
| Not applicable to my practice | 3 (0.7) | |
| Unclear answer | 68 (16.2) | |
| Q54 Measures implemented to catch up with cancellations/postponements, other (n=58) |
Increased screening capacity (clinic space and staff) | 12 (20.7) |
| Prioritizing patients | 2 (3.4) | |
| Adapting and enforcing screening criteria | 3 (5.2) | |
| Allowing in-person screening | 3 (5.2) | |
| Contacting and rebooking patients | 6 (10.3) | |
| Telemedicine | 4 (6.9) | |
| Screening continued during COVID-19 | 2 (3.4) | |
| None | 21 (36.2) | |
| Unclear answer | 5 (8.6) | |
| Q60 Screening patients (with COVID-19) for cervical cancer, if yes, briefly describe the process of cervical cancer screening of COVID-19 patients’ (n=68) ‡ |
Only those who are asymptomatic | 1 (1.5) |
| COVID-19 screening pre-appointment | 12 (17.6) | |
| Use of PPE | 3 (4.4) | |
| Deferral | 37 (54.4) | |
| Telemedicine | 1 (1.5) | |
| Regular practice | 7 (10.3) | |
| Not applicable to my practice | 3 (4.4) | |
| Unclear answer | 6 (8.8) | |
| Q61 Which cervical cancer screening guidelines has your practice/institution been following (n=422)‡ |
Governmental | 268 (63.5) |
| Local/institutional | 19 (4.5) | |
| Professional association/society | 73 (17.3) | |
| Cancer organization/society | 10 (2.4) | |
| None | 13 (3.1) | |
| Don’t know | 11 (2.6) | |
| Not applicable to my practice | 4 (0.1) | |
| Unclear answer/acronym | 40 (9.5) |
Include cost and whether it will be funded by the government; the need to be added to the guidelines and endorsed by government and professionals along with having a well-designed program that helps with patient compliance and the need for professionals to be well educated on the subject; implementation challenges (including delays due to the pandemic, burnout, lack of available healthcare spending, lack of appropriate healthcare infrastructure, lack of prioritization of women’s health); patient education (awareness, proper technique given with clear simple instructions); and logistics (material currently not available or test not routinely offered, should kits be mailed to participants).
Respondents were either not familiar with the test itself, with whether the test is available, or with the test’s validity (in terms of its sensitivity and specificity).
Frequency count exceeded number of respondents (68 respondents for Q60 and 422 respondents for Q61) as some provided more than one answer.