Literature DB >> 19374678

A decision theory perspective on why women do or do not decide to have cancer screening: systematic review.

Kelly Ackerson1, Stephanie D Preston.   

Abstract

AIM: This paper is a report of a review in which decision theory from economics and psychology was applied to understand why some women with access to care do not seek cancer screening.
BACKGROUND: Mammography and cervical smear testing are effective modes of cancer screening, yet many women choose not to be screened. Nurses need to understand the reasons behind women's choices to improve adherence. DATA SOURCES: Research papers published between January 1994 and November 2008 were identified using the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE and PsycINFO data bases. The search was performed using the following terms: cervical cancer screening, breast cancer screening, decision, choice, adherence and framing. Forty-seven papers were identified and reviewed for relevance to the search criteria.
METHODS: Nineteen papers met the search criteria. For each paper, reasons for obtaining or not obtaining cancer screening were recorded, and organized into four relevant decision theory principles: emotions, Prospect Theory, optimism bias and framing.
FINDINGS: All women have fears and uncertainty, but the sources of their fears differ, producing two main decision scenarios. Non-adherence results when women fear medical examinations, providers, tests and procedures, do not have/seek knowledge about risk and frame their current health as the status quo. Adherence is achieved when women fear cancer, but trust care providers, seek knowledge, understand risk and frame routine care as the status quo.
CONCLUSION: Nurses need to address proactively women's perceptions and knowledge about screening by openly and uniformly discussing the importance and benefits.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19374678     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.04981.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Adv Nurs        ISSN: 0309-2402            Impact factor:   3.187


  31 in total

1.  An ethic of resistance: choosing life in health messages for African American women.

Authors:  Hilda R Davis-Carroll
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2011-06

2.  Motivations and experiences of women who accessed "see and treat" cervical cancer prevention services in Zambia.

Authors:  Heather L White; Chishimba Mulambia; Moses Sinkala; Mulindi H Mwanahamuntu; Groesbeck P Parham; Sharon Kapambwe; Linda Moneyham; Mirjam C Kempf; Eric Chamot
Journal:  J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2012-02-28       Impact factor: 2.949

3.  Using Best-Worst Scaling to Understand Patient Priorities: A Case Example of Papanicolaou Tests for Homeless Women.

Authors:  Eve Wittenberg; Monica Bharel; John F P Bridges; Zachary Ward; Linda Weinreb
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 5.166

4.  How does information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening alter the intention to be screened?: a randomized survey of Norwegian women.

Authors:  Anita L Iyer; M Kate Bundorf; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Pascale-Renée Cyr; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.497

5.  Factors Affecting Breast Self-examination Behavior Among Female Healthcare Workers in Iran: The Role of Social Support Theory.

Authors:  Saeed Bashirian; Majid Barati; Leila Moaddab Shoar; Younes Mohammadi; Mitra Dogonchi
Journal:  J Prev Med Public Health       Date:  2019-06-26

6.  Lower Compliance with Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines Among Vegetarians in North America.

Authors:  Jisoo Oh; Keiji Oda; Kaitlyn Dang; Yermek Ibrayev; Gary E Fraser; Synnove F Knutsen
Journal:  J Prev (2022)       Date:  2022-06-27

7.  "I have human papillomavirus": An analysis of illness narratives from the Experience Project.

Authors:  Jessica L Barnack-Tavlaris; Jessica R Serpico; Monisha Ahluwalia; Katie A Ports
Journal:  Appl Nurs Res       Date:  2015-08-08       Impact factor: 2.257

8.  Mammography Decision Aid Reduces Decisional Conflict for Women in Their Forties Considering Screening.

Authors:  Karen B Eden; Paula Scariati; Krystal Klein; Lindsey Watson; Mark Remiker; Michelle Hribar; Vanessa Forro; LeAnn Michaels; Heidi D Nelson
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-09-11       Impact factor: 2.681

9.  Prospective study of factors predicting adherence to surveillance mammography in women treated for breast cancer.

Authors:  Rebecca A Shelby; Cindy D Scipio; Tamara J Somers; Mary Scott Soo; Kevin P Weinfurt; Francis J Keefe
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-02-13       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Predictors of never being screened for cervical cancer by metropolitan area.

Authors:  Sandte L Stanley; Cheryll C Thomas; Jessica B King; Lisa C Richardson
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2014-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.