Literature DB >> 23917801

Ambivalence and its influence on participation in screening for colorectal cancer.

Candice Oster1, Ian Zajac, Ingrid Flight, Elizabeth Hart, Graeme P Young, Carlene Wilson, Deborah Turnbull.   

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide, and an ideal target for early detection and prevention through cancer screening. Unfortunately, rates of participation in screening are less than adequate. In this article we explore why people who were offered a fecal immunochemical test for CRC decided to participate or not, and for those who did participate, what influenced them to take action and complete the test. We conducted four focus groups and 30 telephone interviews with 63 people. The main reason people decided to screen was "wanting to know" their CRC status, which operated on a continuum ranging from wanting to know, through varying degrees of ambivalence, to not wanting to know. The majority of participants expressed ambivalence about CRC screening, and the main cue to action was the opportunity to screen without being too inconvenienced.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cancer, screening and prevention; focus groups; interviews; qualitative analysis; risk, perceptions; self-care

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23917801     DOI: 10.1177/1049732313501890

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Health Res        ISSN: 1049-7323


  7 in total

1.  A randomised controlled trial of personalised decision support delivered via the internet for bowel cancer screening with a faecal occult blood test: the effects of tailoring of messages according to social cognitive variables on participation.

Authors:  Carlene J Wilson; Ingrid Hk Flight; Deborah Turnbull; Tess Gregory; Stephen R Cole; Graeme P Young; Ian T Zajac
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2015-04-09       Impact factor: 2.796

2.  Concerns, perceived need and competing priorities: a qualitative exploration of decision-making and non-participation in a population-based flexible sigmoidoscopy screening programme to prevent colorectal cancer.

Authors:  N Hall; L Birt; C J Rees; F M Walter; S Elliot; M Ritchie; D Weller; G Rubin
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates-Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a 'One Stop' Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer.

Authors:  Amanda Bobridge; Kay Price; Tiffany K Gill; Anne W Taylor
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 6.244

4.  Patient perspectives on colorectal cancer screening and the role of general practice.

Authors:  Lynsey J Brown; S Leigh Roeger; Richard L Reed
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2019-07-29       Impact factor: 2.497

5.  Exploring Participation and Interaction in a Bottom-Up Health Promotion Program for Migrant Women in Norway.

Authors:  Yan Zhao; Trude Gjernes; Marianne Hedlund
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2020-12-21

6.  What can We Learn From High-Performing Screening Programs to Increase Bowel Cancer Screening Participation in Australia?

Authors:  Louisa Flander; Evelien Dekker; Berit Andersen; Mette Bach Larsen; Robert J Steele; Nea Malila; Tytti Sarkeala; Manon van der Vlugt; Clasine de Klerk; Bart Knottnerus; Lucinda Bertels; Anke Woudstra; Manon C W Spaander; Mirjam Fransen; Sirpa Heinavaara; Mary Dillon; Driss Ait Ouakrim; Mark Jenkins
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 2.339

7.  Patterns of participation over four rounds of annual fecal immunochemical test-based screening for colorectal cancer: what predicts rescreening?

Authors:  Joanne M Osborne; Carlene Wilson; Amy Duncan; Stephen R Cole; Ingrid Flight; Deborah Turnbull; Donna L Hughes; Graeme P Young
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 3.295

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.