Background While colposcopy is a critical step in the cervical screening pathway, many women experience psychological distress related to referral and procedural uncertainty, driven by limited information, inadequate emotional support, and inconsistent communication between primary and specialist care. Nurse practitioner (NP)-led colposcopy clinics offer continuity and a holistic approach that may improve access to information and emotional support. Few studies have explored women's experiences of NP-led colposcopy in Australia. Aim The aim of this study was to explore women's experiences of referral to and attendance at an NP-led colposcopy clinic, and their perceptions of the NP's role in informational and emotional support. Method An exploratory qualitative design informed by hermeneutic inquiry was used. Semistructured interviews were conducted with women attending an NP-led colposcopy clinic at a private cancer hospital in Australia. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis. Findings Eight women participated. Four themes were identified: uncertainty and unfamiliarity; fear and increased anxiety; emotional experiences and needs; and healthcare navigation and support. Participants reported minimal information from referrers and sought online content, heightening fears of pain, cancer, and fertility. Empathetic NP communication transformed fear into reassurance, fostering safety and control. Findings are limited by the small, self-selecting sample from a single service. Conclusion Colposcopy-related anxiety is driven by informational and emotional uncertainty. Structured referral communication, co-designed resources, and proactive NP-led follow-up may reduce distress and improve continuity across the pathway. The NP-led model integrates clinical expertise with compassionate communication, addressing informational and emotional needs. Wider implementation offers a sustainable approach to trauma-informed, person-centred colposcopy care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Philp et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: