European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2017
Understanding the heterogeneity of cervical cancer screening non-participants: Data from a national sample of British women.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Marlow Laura A V, Chorley Amanda J, Haddrell Jessica, Ferrer Rebecca, Waller Jo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Uptake of cervical cancer screening in the United Kingdom (UK) is falling year on year, and a more sophisticated understanding of non-participation may help design interventions to reverse this trend. This study ascertained the prevalence of different non-participant types using the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM).
METHODS: Home-based computer-assisted interviews were carried out with 3113 screening-eligible women in Britain. Survey items assessed self-reported screening uptake and intention to attend in future. Responses to these items were used to classify women into one of five different types of non-participants.
RESULTS: Of 793 non-participants, 28% were unaware of screening, 15% had decided not to attend and 51% were intending to have screening but were currently overdue. Younger women were more likely to be unaware of screening or to intend to be screened, while older women were more likely to have decided not to be screened. Women from ethnic minority backgrounds were more likely to be unaware of screening than white women. Being in a lower social grade was associated with increased odds of all three types of non-participation.
CONCLUSION: The majority of cervical cancer screening non-participants are not making an active decision not to attend but rather are either unaware or unable to act. There are clear sociodemographic differences between non-participant types, which could be used to identify where tailored interventions may be best targeted.
METHODS: Home-based computer-assisted interviews were carried out with 3113 screening-eligible women in Britain. Survey items assessed self-reported screening uptake and intention to attend in future. Responses to these items were used to classify women into one of five different types of non-participants.
RESULTS: Of 793 non-participants, 28% were unaware of screening, 15% had decided not to attend and 51% were intending to have screening but were currently overdue. Younger women were more likely to be unaware of screening or to intend to be screened, while older women were more likely to have decided not to be screened. Women from ethnic minority backgrounds were more likely to be unaware of screening than white women. Being in a lower social grade was associated with increased odds of all three types of non-participation.
CONCLUSION: The majority of cervical cancer screening non-participants are not making an active decision not to attend but rather are either unaware or unable to act. There are clear sociodemographic differences between non-participant types, which could be used to identify where tailored interventions may be best targeted.