‘It’s a can of worms’: understanding primary care practitioners’ behaviours in relation to HPV using the theoretical domains framework
Open accessAbstract
Background: The relationship between infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer is transforming cervical cancer prevention. HPV tests and vaccinations have recently become available. In Ireland, as elsewhere, primary care practitioners play a key role in prevention. ATHENS (A Trial of HPV Education and Support) aims to develop a theory-based intervention to support primary care practitioners in their HPV-related practice. This study, the first step in the intervention development process, aimed to: identify HPV-related clinical behaviours that the intervention will target; clarify general practitioners’ (GPs’) and practice nurses’ roles and responsibilities; and determine factors that potentially influence clinical behaviour. A secondary objective was to informally assess the utility of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) in understanding clinical behaviours in an area with an evolving evidence-base. Methods: In-depth semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with GPs and practice nurses. The topic guide, which contained open questions and HPV-related clinical scenarios, was developed through literature review and clinical experience. Interview transcripts were content-analysed using the TDF as the coding framework. Results: 19 GPs and 14 practice nurses were interviewed. The major HPV-related clinical behaviours were: initiating a discussion about HPV infection with female patients; offering/recommending HPV vaccination to appropriate patients; and answering patients’ questions about HPV testing. While the responsibility for taking smears was considered a female role, both male and female practitioners dealt with HPV-related issues. All 12 theoretical domains arose in relation to HPV infection; the domains judged to be most important were: knowledge, emotion, social influences, beliefs about capabilities and beliefs about consequences. Eleven domains emerged in relation to HPV vaccination, with beliefs about consequences, social influences, knowledge and environmental context and resources judged to be the most important. Nine domains were relevant to HPV testing, with knowledge and beliefs about capabilities judged to be the most important. Conclusions: The findings confirm the need for an intervention to support primary care practitioners around HPV and suggest it should target a range of theoretical domains. The TDF proved valuable in analysing qualitative data collected using a topic guide not specifically designed to capture TDF domains and understanding clinical behaviours in an area with an evolving evidence-base.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Determinants of practice can be identified through formal assessment processes, theory or conceptual models, research literature, or informal approaches such as brainstorming.
“While these determinants of practice could be identified through formal assessment processes, they could also be identified using theory or conceptual models e.g., [87], research literature e.g., [59,60,88-90], or more informal approaches such as brainstorming e.g., [55].”
From Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting (2013) · cites this paper as [87]
The TDF was demonstrated to be useful for the development of qualitative and quantitative measurement tools to assess potential implementation behavior determinants.
“The framework has been used in a number of studies and was demonstrated to be useful for the development of qualitative [32,33] and quantitative [34-36] measurement tools to assess potential implementation behavior determinants.”
From Discriminant content validity of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire for use in implementation research (2014) · cites this paper as [33]
The TDF has been used in a number of studies.
“The framework has been used in a number of studies and was demonstrated to be useful for the development of qualitative [32,33] and quantitative [34-36] measurement tools to assess potential implementation behavior determinants.”
From Discriminant content validity of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire for use in implementation research (2014) · cites this paper as [33]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 48 · Cited by 129
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- National Immunisation Office Ireland publications:Chapter 6a 2009 http://www.immunisation.ie/en/Downloads/NIACGuidelines/PDFFile_16868_en.pdf
- Murphy J Sharp L Sheils O Martin C Pilkington L O'Leary J Irish women's views on cervical screening 2009 HPV infection and HPV vaccination. Finding from a qualitative focus group study, BSCCP conference Dublin
- Authors
- McSherry, L. A., Dombrowski, S. U., Francis, J. J., Murphy, J., Martin, C. M., O’Leary, J. J., Sharp, L., & ATHENS Group
- Affiliations
- National Cancer Registry (IE)
- Newcastle University (GB)
- University of Aberdeen (GB)
- Coombe Women & Infants University Hospital (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Sharp, Linda
- Venue
- Implementation Science
- Published
- 2012-08-03
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 73-73
- ISSN
- 1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3523072
- OpenAlex
- W2108181863
- Cited by
- 129
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 6.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
- Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Lenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Keywords
- human papillomavirus, HPV vaccination, HPV testing, cervical cancer prevention, primary care physicians, general practitioners, practice nurses, clinical behavior, Theoretical Domains Framework, intervention development, topic guide, beliefs about consequences, social influence, knowledge
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Behavior, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Communication, Emotions, Female, Humans, Ireland, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Nurse Practitioners, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Social Environment, Vaginal Smears, Professional Role, Papillomavirus Infections, Papillomavirus Vaccines, Physicians, Primary Care
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review