. 2022 Aug;105(8):2757–2762. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.04.006

Table 4.

The impact of five different messages about HPV and the rationale for extended intervals on acceptability of 5-yearly screening in England (unadjusted).

	Message exposure group
	Control	Timeline	If HPV positive	Accuracy	Safety	Speed of cell changes	F (df) or χ²(df) with p-value
	n = 472	n = 462	n = 490	n = 472	n = 461	n = 457
Components of acceptability
Affective attitude¹, mean (SD)	2.08 (0.83)	2.20 (0.89)	2.20 (0.87)	2.37 (0.89)^a	2.38 (0.88)^a	2.41 (0.85)^a	F(5, 2696)= 10.08, p < .001
Ethicality¹, mean (SD)	2.22 (0.76)	2.35 (0.77)	2.32 (0.77)	2.50 (0.78)^a	2.46 (0.79)^a	2.54 (0.76)^a	F(5,2691)= 11.48, p < .001
Self-efficacy¹, mean (SD)	2.97 (0.78)	2.98 (0.80)	2.86 (0.81)	2.92 (0.81)	2.96 (0.84)	3.01 (0.75)	F(5,2461)= 1.75, p = .121
Intervention coherence
Doesn’t make sense to me, n (%)	324 (73.0)	282 (65.0)	306 (69.2)	235 (54.3)^a	253 (57.4)^a	209 (49.3)^a	χ²(5) = 78.11, p < .001
I have a clear understanding of the change, n (%)	194 (43.1)	276 (63.6)^a	238 (51.9)	350 (78.1)^a	305 (70.1)^a	354 (80.3)^a	χ² (5)= 214.12, p < .001
Perceived effectiveness
The new HPV test will improve screening, n (%)	225 (62.8)	251 (68.8)	245 (63.5)	273 (70.2)	251 (69.1)	240 (66.1)	χ²(5) = 8.04, p = .154
Having 5 years between cervical screens is safe n (%)	158 (38.4)	194 (46.9)	173 (42.0)	212 (49.5)^a	208 (50.1)^a	234 (56.3)^a	χ²(5) = 33.33, p < .001
I would pay for screening privately, n (%)	184 (43.4)	158 (38.5)	160 (37.3)	149 (35.2)	140 (35.1)	140 (34.4)	χ²(5) = 9.98, p = .076
Opportunity cost
… less opportunity to discuss other health concerns, n (%)	258 (62.0)	258 (62.6)	263 (61.6)	242 (57.8)	253 (60.5)	235 (57.5)	χ²(5) = 4.25, p = .514

Superscript indicates where there was a difference compared to the control group (at p < .001).

Treated as a continuous variable, possible range 1–4.