A Qualitative Exploration of the Decision Not to Take Part in Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Women Living in Lower Socio-Economic Areas.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Nicholas Clarke, Lucy Hayden, Alan Smith, Linda Sharp, Christian von Wagner, Therese Mooney, Pamela Gallagher
{"title":"A Qualitative Exploration of the Decision Not to Take Part in Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Women Living in Lower Socio-Economic Areas.","authors":"Nicholas Clarke, Lucy Hayden, Alan Smith, Linda Sharp, Christian von Wagner, Therese Mooney, Pamela Gallagher","doi":"10.1002/pon.70600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Organized colorectal (CRC) screening programmes offer an opportunity to reduce the burden of the disease on populations. CRC screening participation among women is substantially lower than breast or cervical cancer screening. Uptake is also lower in areas of greater deprivation which could exacerbate inequalities in CRC; however, few studies have been conducted with women resident in lower socio-economic areas who were invited for screening but did not participate. The aim of this study was to explore women's decisions not to take part in Ireland's population-based BowelScreen programme.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with women resident in lower socio-economic areas, who had not participated in BowelScreen. Deductive thematic analysis, guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF: 14 domain version), using the framework approach was conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen women from lower socio-economic areas in Ireland who had not participated in BowelScreen were interviewed. Six TDF domains were identified as influencing non-participation; (1) Environmental Context and Resources; stressful life events and lack of healthcare professional recommendations, (2) Memory, Attention and Decision Making; delayed decision making and deciding screening is not personally relevant, (3) Knowledge; poor knowledge negating need for screening, (4) Emotions; disgust, embarrassment and fear, (5) Skills; low self-efficacy and instruction complexity, and (6) Social influence; did not encourage testing or was overridden by emotion and poor knowledge.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Greater consideration should be given to the targeting of interventions towards specific determinants of non-participation within subgroups of the population, in particular non-participant women living within lower socio-economic areas. Tackling environmental stressors, emotional factors, lack of healthcare professional support and the perception that feeling healthy equates with not needing screening could help improve CRC screening uptake among women living in low socioeconomic areas.</p>","PeriodicalId":20779,"journal":{"name":"Psycho‐Oncology","volume":"35 9","pages":"e70600"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13595476/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psycho‐Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.70600","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Organized colorectal (CRC) screening programmes offer an opportunity to reduce the burden of the disease on populations. CRC screening participation among women is substantially lower than breast or cervical cancer screening. Uptake is also lower in areas of greater deprivation which could exacerbate inequalities in CRC; however, few studies have been conducted with women resident in lower socio-economic areas who were invited for screening but did not participate. The aim of this study was to explore women's decisions not to take part in Ireland's population-based BowelScreen programme.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with women resident in lower socio-economic areas, who had not participated in BowelScreen. Deductive thematic analysis, guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF: 14 domain version), using the framework approach was conducted.

Results: Fifteen women from lower socio-economic areas in Ireland who had not participated in BowelScreen were interviewed. Six TDF domains were identified as influencing non-participation; (1) Environmental Context and Resources; stressful life events and lack of healthcare professional recommendations, (2) Memory, Attention and Decision Making; delayed decision making and deciding screening is not personally relevant, (3) Knowledge; poor knowledge negating need for screening, (4) Emotions; disgust, embarrassment and fear, (5) Skills; low self-efficacy and instruction complexity, and (6) Social influence; did not encourage testing or was overridden by emotion and poor knowledge.

Conclusions: Greater consideration should be given to the targeting of interventions towards specific determinants of non-participation within subgroups of the population, in particular non-participant women living within lower socio-economic areas. Tackling environmental stressors, emotional factors, lack of healthcare professional support and the perception that feeling healthy equates with not needing screening could help improve CRC screening uptake among women living in low socioeconomic areas.

社会经济地位较低地区妇女不参加结直肠癌筛查决策的定性探讨
背景:有组织的结直肠癌(CRC)筛查规划为减轻人群的疾病负担提供了机会。妇女参与结直肠癌筛查的比例大大低于乳腺癌或宫颈癌筛查。在贫困程度较高的地区,吸收率也较低,这可能加剧结直肠癌的不平等;然而,很少对社会经济较低地区的妇女进行研究,她们被邀请进行筛查但没有参加。这项研究的目的是探讨妇女不参加爱尔兰以人口为基础的肠道筛查计划的决定。方法:对未参加BowelScreen的低社会经济地区的妇女进行半结构化访谈。在理论领域框架(TDF: 14个领域版本)的指导下,使用框架方法进行了演绎主题分析。结果:来自爱尔兰社会经济地位较低地区的15名未参加BowelScreen的妇女接受了采访。六个TDF领域被确定为影响不参与;(1)环境背景与资源;(2)记忆力、注意力和决策能力;延迟决策和决定筛选与个人无关;(3)知识;(4)情绪;厌恶、尴尬和恐惧;(5)技能;(6)社会影响;不鼓励测试或被情绪和贫乏的知识所压倒。结论:应更多地考虑针对人口中各小群体中不参与的具体决定因素,特别是生活在社会经济地位较低地区的不参与妇女采取干预措施。解决环境压力因素、情绪因素、缺乏医疗保健专业支持以及感觉健康等同于不需要筛查的观念,有助于提高生活在低社会经济地区的妇女对结直肠癌筛查的接受程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psycho‐Oncology
Psycho‐Oncology 医学-心理学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
220
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Psycho-Oncology is concerned with the psychological, social, behavioral, and ethical aspects of cancer. This subspeciality addresses the two major psychological dimensions of cancer: the psychological responses of patients to cancer at all stages of the disease, and that of their families and caretakers; and the psychological, behavioral and social factors that may influence the disease process. Psycho-oncology is an area of multi-disciplinary interest and has boundaries with the major specialities in oncology: the clinical disciplines (surgery, medicine, pediatrics, radiotherapy), epidemiology, immunology, endocrinology, biology, pathology, bioethics, palliative care, rehabilitation medicine, clinical trials research and decision making, as well as psychiatry and psychology. This international journal is published twelve times a year and will consider contributions to research of clinical and theoretical interest. Topics covered are wide-ranging and relate to the psychosocial aspects of cancer and AIDS-related tumors, including: epidemiology, quality of life, palliative and supportive care, psychiatry, psychology, sociology, social work, nursing and educational issues. Special reviews are offered from time to time. There is a section reviewing recently published books. A society news section is available for the dissemination of information relating to meetings, conferences and other society-related topics. Summary proceedings of important national and international symposia falling within the aims of the journal are presented.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书