4.7 Article

Understanding the heterogeneity of cervical cancer screening non-participants: Data from a national sample of British women

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 80, 期 -, 页码 30-38

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.04.017

关键词

Cervical cancer screening; Intention; Uptake; Interventions; PAPM; Inequalities; Age; Stages; Readiness

类别

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK [C7492/A17219]
  2. Cancer Research UK [17219] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.7
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