| Literature DB >> 19440417 |
Abstract
Changes in the organisation of health care have dominated policy initiatives over the past two decades in many countries. An increasing reliance on public health initiatives to prevent or detect disease early has resulted in an increase in programs that screen for cancer in the community. In turn, this accentuates the need to persuasively communicate the value of such initiatives to encourage continued participation. Merely placing screening programs into a community setting is not sufficient to ensure that adequate numbers will voluntarily participate regularly to achieve anticipated cost and mortality savings in the population. In this research the influence of managing communication in a public screening mammography program was investigated. The results revealed that significant opportunities were overlooked for reassurance and information during the physical mammography process. In turn, this highlights the influence of constraints imposed by the structure of the screening program and the resources allocated to the process. This research suggests that it is important to address multiple influences, including ethnic differences, when asking questions about the effectiveness of public health policy, particularly when considering the choices women make about ongoing participation in breast screening programs.Entities:
Keywords: New Zealand; Screening mammography; policy communication
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19440417 PMCID: PMC2672349 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph6020844
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Stages of data collection.
| Stage 1 | Self-completion questionnaire survey of participants |
| Follow-up letter sent within 6 weeks (4 months) | |
| Data entered into SPSS and content analysis of qualitative data to identify common categories (2 months) | |
| Stage 2 | Focus groups with participants to obtain information and seek feedback on data (3 months) |
| Stage 3 | Semi-structured interviews with staff (3 weeks) |
| Transcription and content analysis of interview data (3 months) | |
| Secondary interviews with staff to obtain feedback (2 weeks) |
Clear explanations received about the screening process.
| Received a clear explanation of what breast screening is looking for | 65% |
| Received a clear explanation of the breast screening procedure | 66% |
| Received a clear explanation of when and how test results will be made available | 62% |
| Received a clear explanation of the test results | 60% |
| Received a clear explanation of any further action required | 47% |
Comfort level of asking staff questions compared with clear explanations received crosstabulation.
| Comfort level asking staff questions | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Source of information | Always/usually | Sometimes/never | Significance level |
| Received a clear explanation of what breast screening is looking for | 78% | 22% | p=0.000 |
| Received a clear explanation of the breast screening procedure | 79% | 21% | p=0.000 |
| Received a clear explanation of when and how test results will be made available | 78% | 22% | p=0.000 |
| Received a clear explanation of the test results | 77% | 23% | p=0.001 |
| Received a clear explanation of any further action required | 78% | 22% | p=0.002 |
Demographic information obtained from respondents.
| 50 – 54 | 227 | Live in a city | 190 |
| 55 – 59 | 207 | Live in a rural town | 318 |
| 60 – 64 | 162 | Live in the country | 88 |
| Māori | 155 | Wages or salary | 272 |
| European | 348 | Unpaid work in home | 125 |
| Pacific | 51 | Self employed | 72 |
| Asian | 42 | Retired | 127 |
| Primary School | 29 | Less than $15,000 | 142 |
| Secondary School | 370 | 15,000 to $30,000 | 150 |
| University | 69 | 30,001 to $50,000 | 101 |
| Trade or Polytech | 48 | Greater than $50,000 | 63 |
| Other sources | 80 | Don’t wish to answer | 140 |