Mairead O'Connor1, Judith Murphy2, Cara Martin3, John O'Leary3, Linda Sharp2. 1. National Cancer Registry, Building 6800, Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Cork and m.oconnor@ncri.ie. 2. National Cancer Registry, Building 6800, Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Cork and. 3. Coombe Women and Infants University Hospital, Dolphin's Barn, Dublin 8, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participation in organized cervical cancer screening has declined recently. While research has focussed on barriers to screening participation, less attention has been paid to what motivates women to attend. Moreover, little is known about health care provider/practitioner-level barriers and facilitators to participation. Better understanding of these issues could help inform strategies to improve participation. OBJECTIVES: To explore the role of GPs in influencing women's cervical screening behaviours and investigate other motivators for women to attend for a cervical smear. METHODS: Ten focus groups were conducted in Ireland, shortly before the launch of a national cervical screening programme. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and transcripts were analysed thematically. RESULTS: GPs greatly influence women's screening behaviours and can have a positive or negative impact on women's participation in screening. Four major subthemes emerged in relation to this: the attitude of the GP; prompting by the GP; trust in the GP and women's relationships with their GP. Two main motivators to screening participation were identified: personal reasons/benefits (e.g. potential of smears to be life-saving); and practical issues/convenience. Women's also expressed desires for what they would like to see incorporated in the national screening programme (e.g. an 'out-of-hours' service). CONCLUSION: GPs can impact positively and negatively on women's cervical screening participation. Providing on-going support to GPs around their cervical screening practices is essential to maximize screening attendance. Targeted information materials that focus on the personal reasons and benefits of having smear tests could help stimulate women to participate.
BACKGROUND: Participation in organized cervical cancer screening has declined recently. While research has focussed on barriers to screening participation, less attention has been paid to what motivates women to attend. Moreover, little is known about health care provider/practitioner-level barriers and facilitators to participation. Better understanding of these issues could help inform strategies to improve participation. OBJECTIVES: To explore the role of GPs in influencing women's cervical screening behaviours and investigate other motivators for women to attend for a cervical smear. METHODS: Ten focus groups were conducted in Ireland, shortly before the launch of a national cervical screening programme. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and transcripts were analysed thematically. RESULTS: GPs greatly influence women's screening behaviours and can have a positive or negative impact on women's participation in screening. Four major subthemes emerged in relation to this: the attitude of the GP; prompting by the GP; trust in the GP and women's relationships with their GP. Two main motivators to screening participation were identified: personal reasons/benefits (e.g. potential of smears to be life-saving); and practical issues/convenience. Women's also expressed desires for what they would like to see incorporated in the national screening programme (e.g. an 'out-of-hours' service). CONCLUSION: GPs can impact positively and negatively on women's cervical screening participation. Providing on-going support to GPs around their cervical screening practices is essential to maximize screening attendance. Targeted information materials that focus on the personal reasons and benefits of having smear tests could help stimulate women to participate.
Authors: Lisa A McSherry; Eamonn O'Leary; Stephan U Dombrowski; Jill J Francis; Cara M Martin; John J O'Leary; Linda Sharp Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Katarzyna Nessler; Francis Ball; Sze Kay Florence Chan; Michal Chwalek; Anna Krztoń-Królewiecka; Adam Windak Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2021-12-30 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Nicola S Creagh; Claire Zammit; Julia Ml Brotherton; Marion Saville; Tracey McDermott; Claire Nightingale; Margaret Kelaher Journal: Womens Health (Lond) Date: 2022 Jan-Dec
Authors: Colin Malone; Diana S M Buist; Jasmin Tiro; William Barlow; Hongyuan Gao; John Lin; Rachel L Winer Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-12-31 Impact factor: 4.018