IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v58y2004i1p151-160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Screening for breast cancer: candidacy and compliance

Author

Listed:
  • Pfeffer, Naomi

Abstract

This paper is concerned with understanding why some women accept their invitation for free screening mammography and others do not. Free screening mammography is offered to women aged 50-64 in Britain. Uptake of invitations is about twice as high in leafy suburbs than in inner-city areas. Low uptake in inner-city areas has been attributed to 'problems' of black and minority ethnic women. The research reported here was carried out in Hackney, an inner city London borough with an ethnically diverse and socially deprived population. Hackney also has the lowest uptake of screening mammography in the country. Twenty focus groups were held. Participants included white, black and minority ethnic women. Eight focus groups were conducted in English; 12 in other languages. Some methodological issues raised by undertaking qualitative research in several languages are considered. The research demonstrates how the inclusion of white women in research which operationalises ethnicity minimizes the risk of developing an analysis focusing on 'problems' of black and minority ethnic women and encourages the development of general themes which may apply to all women. The analysis focuses on candidacy, that is, women's assessment of risk of their disease, and compliance, that is, the explanations respondents volunteered for accepting or refusing an invitation to attend for mammography. Candidacy and ethnicity emerge as similar constructs, manipulated by women to make claims about their risk of breast cancer. Other, non-medical reasons were given for compliance which serve as a warning about assuming that, when women accept their invitation, they do so for same the reasons the architects of the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme had in mind.

Suggested Citation

  • Pfeffer, Naomi, 2004. "Screening for breast cancer: candidacy and compliance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 151-160, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:58:y:2004:i:1:p:151-160
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(03)00156-4
    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. Brown, Tim & Dyck, Isabel & Greenhough, Beth & Raven-Ellison, Menah & Dembinsky, Melanie & Ornstein, Mark & Duffy, Stephen W., 2017. "Fear, family and the placing of emotion: Black women's responses to a breast cancer awareness intervention," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 90-96.
    2. Samantha Batchelor & Emma R. Miller & Belinda Lunnay & Sara Macdonald & Paul R. Ward, 2021. "Revisiting Candidacy: What Might It Offer Cancer Prevention?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-14, September.
    3. Solbjør, Marit & Skolbekken, John-Arne & Sætnan, Ann Rudinow & Hagen, Anne Irene & Forsmo, Siri, 2012. "Mammography screening and trust: The case of interval breast cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(10), pages 1746-1752.
    4. Macdonald, Sara & Conway, Elaine & Bikker, Annemieke & Browne, Susan & Robb, Kathryn & Campbell, Christine & Steele, Robert JC. & Weller, David & Macleod, Una, 2019. "Making sense of bodily sensations: Do shared cancer narratives influence symptom appraisal?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 223(C), pages 31-39.

    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:58:y:2004:i:1:p:151-160. 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.