4.1 Article

Screening for physical and psychological illness in the British Armed Forces: II: Barriers to screening - learning from the opinions of Service personnel

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages 153-157

Publisher

ROYAL SOC MEDICINE PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1258/0969141041732247

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To identify any potential barriers to the effectiveness of a military health screening programme based on the beliefs of British Service personnel. Methods: As part of a pilot evaluation of the suitability of a new health screening questionnaire for the British Armed Forces, 73 men and women from the three Services, of various ranks and age, underwent a semi-structured interview after completing a screening questionnaire. Participants were asked about the veracity of their answers and their views regarding a screening questionnaire. Afterwards questionnaires were sent to 4496 randomly selected personnel from the three Services, which. validated the main emerging themes. A constant comparative method of analysis was used to identify and categorise all ideas presented. Results: The main barriers to health screening were lack of trust, perceived low quality of healthcare, and perceived lack of concern within the institution about work environments and home life. The central issue was 'confidence' in military health care provision. Screening was considered worthwhile, but many confided that they would not honestly answer some items in the questionnaire. Lack of trust in medical confidentiality, stigmatisation and fears that the process would jeopardise career prospects were stressed. Many Service personnel admitted to seeking medical help outside the Armed Forces. Conclusions: Concerns raised by Service personnel may endanger the value of a screening programme and the provision of health services. Greater emphasis needs to be placed upon gaining. the confidence of those targeted for health screening.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available