Literature DB >> 17886262

How do women who choose not to participate in population-based cervical cancer screening reason about their decision?

Karin Blomberg1, Britt-Marie Ternestedt, Sven Törnberg, Carol Tishelman.   

Abstract

In Stockholm, Sweden, women are invited to a cost-free population-based cervical cancer screening programme (PCCSP) at regular intervals. Despite this, many women choose not to attend screening at all or to take opportunistic tests instead. This study explores how women who actively declined participation in the PCCSP reasoned about their choice. Qualitative telephone interviews and fax messages from women who actively declined participation in the PCCSP were analysed inductively. The manner in which women defined and conceptualized distinctions between, and the roles and responsibilities of, both private and public spheres were found to be central in explanations of decision making. Factors related to women's decisions not to participate in screening at all include a lack of confidence in the benefits of screening, previous negative health care and preventive experiences, a belief in one's own ability to discern health changes or a belief that one was not at risk for cervical cancer, as well as a number of unconventional standpoints on social and political issues. Women who chose not to participate in the organized PCCSP, but who did use private opportunistic screening, generally motivated this with direct or indirect criticism of the screening programme itself. Not only was the examination itself sensitive but also all facets of the PCCSP, from invitation letter on, were found to influence women's decisions. Using Jepson et al.'s ethical framework to peruse the evidence-base underlying women's 'informed decision-making' about CCS is suggested to be more constructive than discussing potential participants' knowledge versus lack of knowledge.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 17886262     DOI: 10.1002/pon.1270

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychooncology        ISSN: 1057-9249            Impact factor:   3.894


  12 in total

1.  Chinese-Australian women's knowledge, facilitators and barriers related to cervical cancer screening: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Cannas Kwok; Kate White; Jessica K Roydhouse
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2011-12

2.  Community collaboration to increase foreign-born women's participation in a cervical cancer screening program in Sweden: a quality improvement project.

Authors:  Erik Olsson; Malena Lau; Svante Lifvergren; Alexander Chakhunashvili
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2014-08-09

3.  After-effects reported by women having follow-up cervical cytology tests in primary care: a cohort study within the TOMBOLA trial.

Authors:  Seonaidh Cotton; Linda Sharp; Claire Cochran; Nicola Gray; Maggie Cruickshank; Louise Smart; Alison Thornton; Julian Little
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Screening and cervical cancer cure: population based cohort study.

Authors:  Bengt Andrae; Therese M-L Andersson; Paul C Lambert; Levent Kemetli; Lena Silfverdal; Björn Strander; Walter Ryd; Joakim Dillner; Sven Törnberg; Pär Sparén
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-03-01

5.  Barriers to and facilitators of compliance with clinic-based cervical cancer screening: population-based cohort study of women aged 23-60 years.

Authors:  Ellinor Östensson; Susanna Alder; K Miriam Elfström; Karin Sundström; Niklas Zethraeus; Marc Arbyn; Sonia Andersson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  When Life Got in the Way: How Danish and Norwegian Immigrant Women in Sweden Reason about Cervical Screening and Why They Postpone Attendance.

Authors:  Fatima Azerkan; Catarina Widmark; Pär Sparén; Elisabete Weiderpass; Per Tillgren; Elisabeth Faxelid
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Disseminating a cervical cancer screening program through primary physicians in Hong Kong: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Cecilia S Fabrizio; Christopher M Shea
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  Women's perspectives on human papillomavirus self-sampling in the context of the UK cervical screening programme.

Authors:  Denitza Williams; Myfanwy Davies; Alison Fiander; Daniel Farewell; Sharon Hillier; Kate Brain
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Understanding the role of embarrassment in gynaecological screening: a qualitative study from the ASPIRE cervical cancer screening project in Uganda.

Authors:  Flora F Teng; Sheona M Mitchell; Musa Sekikubo; Christine Biryabarema; Josaphat K Byamugisha; Malcolm Steinberg; Deborah M Money; Gina S Ogilvie
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 10.  Experiences of cervical screening and barriers to participation in the context of an organised programme: a systematic review and thematic synthesis.

Authors:  Amanda J Chorley; Laura A V Marlow; Alice S Forster; Jessica B Haddrell; Jo Waller
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2016-04-12       Impact factor: 3.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.