Literature DB >> 3227371

Reasons for non-attendance for computer-managed cervical screening: pilot interviews.

A K Elkind1, D Haran, A Eardley, B Spencer.   

Abstract

A pilot interview study looked at reasons why women did not attend a clinic following an invitation for a cervical smear test offered via a computer-managed scheme. Three broad issues were identified. First, the inaccuracy of the computer database (the FPC register) meant some women were inaccessible because they no longer lived at the address recorded. Other women were ineligible or unsuitable within the criteria of the scheme but had been sent invitations inappropriately because their screening records were incomplete or out of date. Second, aspects of service organisation and provision led to misclassification of some attenders as non-attenders and to various failures of communication such as non-receipt of the invitation or health education leaflet or unsuccessful attempts to rearrange appointments. In addition, the appointment or venue offered could be unsatisfactory. The third issue concerned the characteristics of the women which sometimes interacted with practical problems connected with service provision. Other women believed the test to be inappropriate for themselves while some were deterred by the prospect of the test itself. In general, embarrassment was pervasive and reflected in preferences for different types of service provision. Women who had neither attended nor been otherwise tested were particularly likely to express feelings of fear and fatalism. General attitudes to the test were favourable but this was not always applied personally. A typology of reasons for non-attendance for computer-managed cervical screening is presented.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3227371     DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(88)90014-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  9 in total

Review 1.  Understanding the uptake of cervical cancer screening: the contribution of the health belief model.

Authors:  S J Gillam
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Pap smear screening rates: coverage on the southern queen charlotte islands.

Authors:  B Calam; M Bass; G Deagle
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 3.  Making cervical screening work.

Authors:  A Smith; A Elkind; A Eardley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-06-24

4.  Assessing the effectiveness of a screening campaign: who is missed by 80% cervical screening coverage?

Authors:  S Orbell; I Crombie; A Robertson; G Johnston; M Kenicer
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Intercultural consultations: investigation of factors that deter non-English speaking women from attending their general practitioners for cervical screening.

Authors:  J Naish; J Brown; B Denton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-10-29

6.  'I do not need to... I do not want to... I do not give it priority...'--why women choose not to attend cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Marie G Oscarsson; Barbro E Wijma; Eva G Benzein
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Cervical screening: the optimum visit plan for contacting users and non-users in Scotland.

Authors:  I K Crombie; S Orbell; G Johnston; A J Robertson; M Kenicer
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 3.710

8.  Should we pursue patients who fail to attend colorectal clinics? A 9-year study.

Authors:  S K P John; O M Jones; H Fay; R D Howell; J B J Fozard
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 9.  Experiences of cervical screening and barriers to participation in the context of an organised programme: a systematic review and thematic synthesis.

Authors:  Amanda J Chorley; Laura A V Marlow; Alice S Forster; Jessica B Haddrell; Jo Waller
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2016-04-12       Impact factor: 3.894

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.