IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v53y2001i5p679-691.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Declining the offer of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for bowel cancer: : a qualitative investigation of the decision-making process

Author

Listed:
  • McCaffery, Kirsten
  • Borril, Jo
  • Williamson, Sara
  • Taylor, Tamara
  • Sutton, Stephen
  • Atkin, Wendy
  • Wardle, Jane

Abstract

Qualitative methods were used to investigate decision-making among a group of older adults who declined the offer of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for bowel cancer. Interviews were conducted with 60 people (30 men and 30 women) who either had not responded to the screening letter or who responded saying that they were not interested in participating. The findings suggest that low perceived susceptibility to bowel cancer, in terms of current health status, family history or absence of bowel symptoms, was an important factor in the decision to decline screening. Procedural barriers such as embarrassment, pain/discomfort and perceived unpleasantness of the test were reported as relatively minor, although the test was considered more physically intrusive than other screening tests. Avoidant attitudes emerged as an important theme and were reported by a third of respondents. Distinct patterns of decision-making were also observed and three groups emerged from accounts: (i) forgetting or avoiding making a decision about the test (ii) a confident rejection of the test based on a few salient factors, and (iii) a more careful consideration of the test focusing on issues of susceptibility. The findings are discussed in the context of models of health behaviour and bowel cancer screening participation research.

Suggested Citation

  • McCaffery, Kirsten & Borril, Jo & Williamson, Sara & Taylor, Tamara & Sutton, Stephen & Atkin, Wendy & Wardle, Jane, 2001. "Declining the offer of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for bowel cancer: : a qualitative investigation of the decision-making process," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(5), pages 679-691, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:53:y:2001:i:5:p:679-691
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(00)00375-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Le Bonniec, Alice & Meade, Oonagh & Fredrix, Milou & Morrissey, Eimear & O'Carroll, Ronan E. & Murphy, Patrick J. & Murphy, Andrew W. & Mc Sharry, Jenny, 2023. "Exploring non-participation in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review of qualitative studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 329(C).
    2. Martin C S Wong & Jessica Y L Ching & Hoyee H Hirai & Thomas Y T Lam & Sian M Griffiths & Francis K L Chan & Joseph J Y Sung, 2013. "Perceived Obstacles of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Their Associated Factors among 10,078 Chinese Participants," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-10, July.
    3. Chapple, Alison & Ziebland, Sue & Hewitson, Paul & McPherson, Ann, 2008. "What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2425-2435, June.
    4. Beyer, Kirsten M.M. & Comstock, Sara & Seagren, Renea & Rushton, Gerard, 2011. "Explaining place-based colorectal cancer health disparities: Evidence from a rural context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 373-382, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:53:y:2001:i:5:p:679-691. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.