Literature DB >> 20054095

Barriers to cervical cancer screening attendance in England: a population-based survey.

Jo Waller1, Marta Bartoszek, Laura Marlow, Jane Wardle.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To explore barriers to cervical screening attendance in a population-based sample, and to compare barriers endorsed by women who were up-to-date with screening versus those who were overdue. We also tested the hypothesis that women who were overdue for screening would be more generally disillusioned with public services, as indexed by reported voting behaviour in elections.
SETTING: A population-based survey of women in England.
METHODS: Face-to-face interviews were carried out with 580 women aged 26-64 years, and recruited using stratified random probability sampling as part of an omnibus survey. Questions assessed self-reported cervical screening attendance, barriers to screening, voting behaviour and demographic characteristics.
RESULTS: Eighty-five per cent of women were up-to-date with screening and 15% were overdue, including 2.6% who had never had a smear test. The most commonly endorsed barriers were embarrassment (29%), intending to go but not getting round to it (21%), fear of pain (14%) and worry about what the test might find (12%). Only four barriers showed significant independent associations with screening status: difficulty making an appointment, not getting round to going, not being sexually active and not trusting the test. We found support for our hypothesis that women who do not attend for screening are less likely to vote in elections, even when controlling for barrier endorsement and demographic factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Practical barriers were more predictive of screening uptake than emotional factors such as embarrassment. This has clear implications for service provision and future interventions to increase uptake. The association between voting behaviour and screening uptake lends support to the hypothesis that falling screening coverage may be indicative of a broader phenomenon of disillusionment, and further research in this area is warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20054095     DOI: 10.1258/jms.2009.009073

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  89 in total

1.  Accuracy of urinary human papillomavirus testing for the presence of cervical human papillomaviruses and higher grades of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

Authors:  Chandrika J Piyathilake; Suguna Badiga; Michelle M Chambers; Ilene K Brill; Roland Matthews; Edward E Partridge
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Evaluating the stage of change model to a cervical cancer screening intervention among Ohio Appalachian women.

Authors:  Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Jill M Oliveri; Gregory S Young; Mira L Katz; Cathy M Tatum; Electra D Paskett
Journal:  Women Health       Date:  2015-10-19

3.  Determinants of Cancer Early Detection Behaviors:Application of Protection Motivation Theory.

Authors:  Zohreh Rahaei; Fazlollah Ghofranipour; Mohammad Ali Morowatisharifabad; Eesa Mohammadi
Journal:  Health Promot Perspect       Date:  2015-07-07

4.  Reactions of women underscreened for cervical cancer who received unsolicited human papillomavirus self-sampling kits.

Authors:  Colin Malone; Jasmin A Tiro; Diana Sm Buist; Tara Beatty; John Lin; Kilian Kimbel; Hongyuan Gao; Chris Thayer; Diana L Miglioretti; Rachel L Winer
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 2.136

5.  Cost-effectiveness studies of HPV self-sampling: A systematic review.

Authors:  Colin Malone; Ruanne V Barnabas; Diana S M Buist; Jasmin A Tiro; Rachel L Winer
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Rationale and design of the HOME trial: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of home-based human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling for increasing cervical cancer screening uptake and effectiveness in a U.S. healthcare system.

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

7.  Barriers to Cervical Screening Among Sex Workers in Vancouver.

Authors:  Putu Duff; Gina Ogilvie; Jean Shoveller; Ofer Amram; Jill Chettiar; Paul Nguyen; Sabina Dobrer; Julio Montaner; Kate Shannon
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Patterns and determinants of breast and cervical cancer non-screening among Appalachian women.

Authors:  Nancy E Schoenberg; Christina R Studts; Jenna Hatcher-Keller; Eliza Buelt; Elwanda Adams
Journal:  Women Health       Date:  2013

9.  Assessing Acceptability of Self-Sampling Kits, Prevalence, and Risk Factors for Human Papillomavirus Infection in American Indian Women.

Authors:  Rachel L Winer; Angela A Gonzales; Carolyn J Noonan; Stephen L Cherne; Dedra S Buchwald
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2016-10

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.