IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i17p9129-d625087.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Barriers and Facilitators of Breast Cancer Screening amongst Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Women in South Western Sydney: A Qualitative Explorative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Javeria Jamal

    (School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW 2560, Australia)

  • Freya MacMillan

    (Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW 2560, Australia
    School of Health Science, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW 2560, Australia)

  • Kate A. McBride

    (School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW 2560, Australia
    School of Health Science, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW 2560, Australia)

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common cause of cancer amongst Australian women and the second most common cause of cancer mortality. Despite the proven effectiveness of early intervention, screening rates remain subpar across many regions in New South Wales (NSW). Screening rates are particularly low within the culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) area of South Western Sydney (SWS). The objective of this study was to qualitatively explore barriers and facilitators to breast screening from the perspectives of CALD women from SWS. CALD women aged ≥40 who resided in SWS were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview to explore barriers and facilitators to breast cancer screening. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically to identify recurring patterns in the data. Sixteen women from CALD backgrounds participated. Women in this study reported absence of symptoms, fatalistic beliefs and embarrassment during the procedure to be the primary reasons for reluctance to screen. Lack of general practitioner (GP) endorsement, transport issues and pain associated with the procedure were also reported as additional barriers to screening. Common facilitators to screening included encouragement from family and friends, family history of cancer and media adverts. CALD women have distinctive barriers to mammography, which lead to poor breast screening participation rates. Opportunistic health promotion in this area is warranted and may lead to better health outcomes amongst this population.

Suggested Citation

  • Javeria Jamal & Freya MacMillan & Kate A. McBride, 2021. "Barriers and Facilitators of Breast Cancer Screening amongst Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Women in South Western Sydney: A Qualitative Explorative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-13, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:17:p:9129-:d:625087
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/17/9129/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/17/9129/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zapka, J.G. & Stoddard, A.M. & Costanza, M.E. & Greene, H.L., 1989. "Breast cancer screening by mammography: Utilization and associated factors," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 79(11), pages 1499-1502.
    2. Kate A. McBride & Catharine A.K. Fleming & Emma S. George & Genevieve Z. Steiner & Freya MacMillan, 2019. "Double Discourse: Qualitative Perspectives on Breast Screening Participation among Obese Women and Their Health Care Providers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-13, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David JT Campbell & Paul E Ronksley & Braden J Manns & Marcello Tonelli & Claudia Sanmartin & Robert G Weaver & Deirdre Hennessy & Kathryn King-Shier & Tavis Campbell & Brenda R Hemmelgarn & for the I, 2014. "The Association of Income with Health Behavior Change and Disease Monitoring among Patients with Chronic Disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-8, April.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:17:p:9129-:d:625087. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.