Literature DB >> 28486650

Factors influencing the decision to attend screening for cancer in the UK: a meta-ethnography of qualitative research.

B Young1, L Bedford1, D Kendrick1, K Vedhara1, J F R Robertson2, R das Nair3.   

Abstract

Background: This review aimed to better understand experiences of being invited to cancer screening and associated decision-making.
Methods: Qualitative evidence explaining UK cancer screening attendance decisions was systematically identified. Data were extracted and meta-ethnography used to identify shared themes, synthesize findings and generate higher level interpretations.
Results: Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria. They related to uptake of breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate, ovarian and lung cancer screening. Three primary themes emerged from the synthesis. 'Relationships with the health service' shaped decisions, influenced by trust, compliance with power, resistance to control or surveillance and perceived failures to meet cultural, religious and language needs. 'Fear of cancer screening' was both a motivator and barrier in different ways and to varying degrees. Strategies to negotiate moderate fear levels were evident. 'Experiences of risk' included the creation of alternative personal risk discourses and the use of screening as a coping strategy, influenced by disease beliefs and feelings of health and wellness. Conclusions: The findings highlight the importance of the provider-patient relationship in screening uptake and enrich our understanding of how fear and risk are experienced and negotiated. This knowledge can help promote uptake and improve the effectiveness of cancer screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 28486650     DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdx026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Public Health (Oxf)        ISSN: 1741-3842            Impact factor:   2.341


  10 in total

1.  Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Shared Decision-making in Early Adopting Lung Cancer Screening Programs: a Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Renda Soylemez Wiener; Elisa Koppelman; Rendelle Bolton; Karen E Lasser; Belinda Borrelli; David H Au; Christopher G Slatore; Jack A Clark; Hasmeena Kathuria
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Improving the uptake of cervical screening in pregnant and recently postnatal women: a quality improvement project.

Authors:  Sarah Louise Coleridge; Alison Wiggans; Ellen Nelissen; Rob Bethune; Richard Blackwell; Andrew Bryant; Jo Morrison
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2022-05

3.  Impact of noncardiac findings in patients undergoing CT coronary angiography: a substudy of the Scottish computed tomography of the heart (SCOT-HEART) trial.

Authors:  Michelle C Williams; Amanda Hunter; Anoop S V Shah; John Dreisbach; Jonathan R Weir McCall; Mark T Macmillan; Rachael Kirkbride; Fiona Hawke; Andrew Baird; Saeed Mirsadraee; Edwin J R van Beek; David E Newby; Giles Roditi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-01-02       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Could changing invitation and booking processes help women translate their cervical screening intentions into action? A population-based survey of women's preferences in Great Britain.

Authors:  Mairead Ryan; Jo Waller; Laura Av Marlow
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-07-11       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Mamta Ruparel; Samantha Quaife; David Baldwin; Jo Waller; Samuel Janes
Journal:  BMJ Open Respir Res       Date:  2019-11-24

6.  Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions.

Authors:  Lise Mørkved Helsingen; Linan Zeng; Reed Alexander Siemieniuk; Lyubov Lytvyn; Per Olav Vandvik; Thomas Agoritsas; Michael Bretthauer; Gordon Guyatt
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-12-02       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Reasons for intending to accept or decline kidney cancer screening: thematic analysis of free text from an online survey.

Authors:  Charlotte Freer-Smith; Laragh Harvey-Kelly; Katie Mills; Hannah Harrison; Sabrina H Rossi; Simon J Griffin; Grant D Stewart; Juliet A Usher-Smith
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Revisiting Candidacy: What Might It Offer Cancer Prevention?

Authors:  Samantha Batchelor; Emma R Miller; Belinda Lunnay; Sara Macdonald; Paul R Ward
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-09-27       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  Online public interest in common malignancies and cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

Authors:  Samuel A Cohen; Shayan Ebrahimian; Landon E Cohen; Jonathan D Tijerina
Journal:  J Clin Transl Res       Date:  2021-11-06

10.  Organized Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening: Attendance and Determinants in Southern Italy.

Authors:  Concetta P Pelullo; Federica Cantore; Alessandra Lisciotto; Gabriella Di Giuseppe; Maria Pavia
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-30       Impact factor: 6.639

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.