4.6 Article

Under-screened Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women's perspectives on cervical screening

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 17, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271658

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) funded Centre of Research Excellence (CRE) in Targeted Approaches To Improve Cancer Services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians (TACTICS) [1153027]
  2. Cancer Council NSW Strategic Research Partnership to improve cancer control for Indigenous Australians (STREP Ca-CIndA) [SRP 1301]
  3. NHMRC [1041111]
  4. Cancer Council WA
  5. Australian Research Council Discovery Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Award - Australian Government [IN190100050]
  6. NHMRC Early Career Fellowship [1142035]
  7. NHRMC Investigator Grant [2009380]
  8. NHMRC Research Fellowship [1058244]
  9. NHMRC Investigator Grant [1176651]
  10. NHMRC Career Development Fellowship [1106716]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reveals the underestimation of cervical screening among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in Australia. Through discussions with under-screened women, it was found that they believed the risks of cervical screening outweighed the benefits, due to distress, lack of privacy and control, complicated relationships with healthcare providers, and culturally unsafe communication. The study also found that one third of under-screened women who participated in the research underwent screening within a short period of time, indicating that enhancing privacy, implementing trauma-informed healthcare approaches, and focusing on the dynamics of the clinician-client relationship can increase women's participation in cervical screening.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women have lower participation in Australia's National Cervical Screening Program than other Australian women. Under-screened (including never screened) women's voices are rarely heard in research evidence, despite being a priority group for interventions to increase cervical screening participation. This study aimed to describe under-screened Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women's perspectives on cervical screening. Participants were 29 under-screened (women who had either never screened, had not screened in the previous five years or had recently screened in the past three months after more than five years) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women from five communities across three states/territories. Female Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers Yarned with women about why they did not participate in screening and how to improve screening. Yarning is an Indigenous qualitative research method in which relationships and trust facilitate culturally safe conversation. Transcripts were analysed thematically. The proportion of eligible women who screened within 30 days after the Yarn was calculated. We identified four themes describing how the harms outweighed the benefits of cervical screening for under-screened women. These were: 1) distress, discomfort, and trauma; 2) lack of privacy and control; 3) complicated relationships with health care providers (HCPs); and 4) pressured, insensitive, and/or culturally unsafe communication from HCPs. Under-screened women who had recently screened had maintained privacy and control through self-collection and had experienced trauma-informed and empathetic care from their HCPs. While we cannot unequivocally attribute women's subsequent participation in screening to their involvement in this study, it is notable that one third of eligible under-screened women were screened within 30 days after the Yarn. Enhancing privacy, implementing trauma-informed approaches to care and sensitivity to the clinician-client relationship dynamics could enhance women's sense of comfort in, and control over, the screening procedure. The opportunity to Yarn about cervical screening and self-collection may address these issues and support progress toward cervical cancer elimination in Australia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据