Academic Journal
Decision‐making about cervical screening in a heterogeneous sample of nonparticipants: A qualitative interview study
| Title: | Decision‐making about cervical screening in a heterogeneous sample of nonparticipants: A qualitative interview study |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Laura A.V. Marlow, Amanda J. Chorley, Lauren Rockliffe, Jo Waller |
| Source: | Psychooncology Marlow, L, Chorley, A, Rockliffe, L & Waller, J 2018, 'Decision-making about cervical screening in a heterogeneous sample of non-participants: a qualitative interview study', Psycho-oncology. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4857 |
| Publisher Information: | Wiley, 2018. |
| Publication Year: | 2018 |
| Subject Terms: | PAPM, Adult, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Decision Making, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Early Detection of Cancer/psychology, Patient Compliance/psychology, decision making, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, tailored, 5. Gender equality, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis, Patient Participation/psychology, Vaginal Smears/psychology, Mass Screening/psychology, cancer, Humans, Mass Screening, cervical screening, theory, Early Detection of Cancer, Qualitative Research, Aged, Vaginal Smears, Practice, Health Knowledge, Precaution adoption process model, Middle Aged, 3. Good health, Attitudes, qualitative, oncology, Papers, beliefs, Patient Compliance, Female, Patient Participation, Comprehension |
| Description: | ObjectiveAccording to the precaution adoption process model, cervical screening nonparticipants represent a heterogeneous group including those who are unaware of, unengaged with, or undecided about screening, as well as intenders and decliners. We aimed to explore beliefs about cervical screening among these different types of nonparticipant.MethodsSemistructured interviews were carried out with women aged 26 to 65 years living in Britain (n = 29). Women were purposively sampled to represent different nonparticipant types. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and data were analysed thematically using framework analysis.ResultsThe salience of some barriers to screening varied between different types of nonparticipant. Bad experiences were prominent in the discussions of women who had decided not to attend, while practical barriers were more prominent among intenders. There was also some overlap between nonparticipant types. For example, many of the undecided women described not wanting to go for screening, but with less certainty than decliners. Some intenders (particularly those who had not been screened before) described not really wanting to attend but feeling they ought to. Women's views on the invitation/reminder process also varied; intenders and maintainers appreciated written reminders and general practitioner (GP) prompts but decliners sometimes perceived these as “badgering.” Throughout the interviews, women described changing views on screening in the wider context of ageing and motherhood.ConclusionsThe salience of screening barriers varies by nonparticipant type, offering possibilities for tailored interventions. However, the fluidity of women's stage of screening adoption might have implications for this approach to intervention design. |
| Document Type: | Article Other literature type |
| Language: | English |
| ISSN: | 1099-1611 1057-9249 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/pon.4857 |
| Access URL: | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/pon.4857 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30095862 https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/publications/908ab0ce-56d1-4cee-9260-550048c905e0 https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4857 https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/decisionmaking-about-cervical-screening-in-a-heterogeneous-sample-of-nonparticipants-a-qualitative-interview-study(908ab0ce-56d1-4cee-9260-550048c905e0).html https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pon.4857 http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/30095862 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30095862 https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/pon.4857 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30095862/ https://discovery-pp.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10053612/ |
| Rights: | CC BY |
| Accession Number: | edsair.doi.dedup.....81ede77ca54a9d6d6d3d82c68316aee5 |
| Database: | OpenAIRE |
| ISSN: | 10991611 10579249 |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.1002/pon.4857 |