title: Disclosing the results of the invasive cervical cancer review to patients: a survey of lead colposcopists across England.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To survey lead colposcopists to explore the extent to which patients are currently being invited to discuss the results of their invasive cervical cancer review, the reasons why this might not be happening and the clinician experience.
  
  
  METHODS
  An online survey was sent to lead colposcopists across England. They were asked whether they offered the review to patients, if they did how they did so and what their experience was and if they did not, why not.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There was a 68.5% (N = 122) response rate, with 53% of respondents currently offering the review meetings. Patients were predominantly invited to the review meeting face to face and clinicians' experiences were mixed with a variety of positive and negative aspects of the meetings given. For those clinicians not currently offering a review meeting, there were a variety of reasons: 25% cited a lack of awareness of the guidelines, 19% time constraints, 12% a fear of causing additional distress and 2% a fear of litigation. Open-ended responses demonstrated a considerable amount of misunderstanding about the process.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Despite National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme guidelines, not all clinicians offer review meetings to patients and those who do offer them do not always offer them to all women. Patient research needs to be conducted to explore the value of the meetings further, and there is a need to do more to engage clinicians in the process.
authors.affiliation: School of Psychology, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
authors.forename: S M
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6708-3398
authors.initials: SM
authors.lastname: Sherman
authors.affiliation: School of Psychology, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Nailer
authors.affiliation: West Midlands Cancer Screening QA Reference Centre, Public Health England, Birmingham, UK.
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Pearmain
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke on Trent, UK.
authors.forename: R W
authors.initials: RW
authors.lastname: Todd
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke on Trent, UK.
authors.forename: C W E
authors.initials: CW
authors.lastname: Redman
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D003127:Colposcopy / Q000592:standards*; D055088:Early Detection of Cancer; D004739:England; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008403:Mass Screening; D008875:Middle Aged; D009361:Neoplasm Invasiveness / Q000473:pathology; D010820:Physicians; D011247:Pregnancy; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D002583:Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000473:pathology
keywords: cervical cancer screening; disclosure of results; invasive cervical cancer audit; screening review