PURPOSE: To describe reasons for non-attendance at cervical screening, as reported by non-attendees, in Sweden. METHODS: Four hundred women were randomized from a population-based register, of which 133 non-attendees answered the Cervical Screening Questionnaire (CSQ) in telephone interviews. Pearson's Chi2 and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to analyze differences between groups. Logistic regression was used to study the relationship between explanatory variables and a binary response variable. RESULTS: The most common reasons for non-attendance were: feeling healthy, lack of time, and feelings of discomfort with the gynecologic examination. Non-attendees, who reported non-attendance due to experiences of discomfort associated with the gynecologic examination, estimated great discomfort at their latest examination. A history of sexual abuse was reported by 16.5%, but there were no differences regarding non-attendance due to experiences of discomfort associated with the gynecologic examination, between non-attendees who had no history of sexual abuse and those who had. CONCLUSION: It seems as though non-attendees did not attend cervical screening as they felt healthy, and thereby did not give time to preventive efforts. Earlier negative experiences such as discomfort during earlier gynecologic examinations seem to guide their decision not to attend.
PURPOSE: To describe reasons for non-attendance at cervical screening, as reported by non-attendees, in Sweden. METHODS: Four hundred women were randomized from a population-based register, of which 133 non-attendees answered the Cervical Screening Questionnaire (CSQ) in telephone interviews. Pearson's Chi2 and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to analyze differences between groups. Logistic regression was used to study the relationship between explanatory variables and a binary response variable. RESULTS: The most common reasons for non-attendance were: feeling healthy, lack of time, and feelings of discomfort with the gynecologic examination. Non-attendees, who reported non-attendance due to experiences of discomfort associated with the gynecologic examination, estimated great discomfort at their latest examination. A history of sexual abuse was reported by 16.5%, but there were no differences regarding non-attendance due to experiences of discomfort associated with the gynecologic examination, between non-attendees who had no history of sexual abuse and those who had. CONCLUSION: It seems as though non-attendees did not attend cervical screening as they felt healthy, and thereby did not give time to preventive efforts. Earlier negative experiences such as discomfort during earlier gynecologic examinations seem to guide their decision not to attend.
Authors: Hitomi Kariya; Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; John Lin; Hongyuan Gao; Linda K Ko; Rachel L Winer Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Rachel L Winer; Jasmin A Tiro; Diana L Miglioretti; Chris Thayer; Tara Beatty; John Lin; Hongyuan Gao; Kilian Kimbel; Diana S M Buist Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-11-04 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Bo T Hansen; Silje S Hukkelberg; Tor Haldorsen; Tormod Eriksen; Gry B Skare; Mari Nygård Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-04-26 Impact factor: 3.295
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
Authors: Marta Jackowska; Christian von Wagner; Jane Wardle; Dorota Juszczyk; Aleksandra Luszczynska; Jo Waller Journal: J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care Date: 2012-01-04