IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i5-6p939-948.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An interview‐based study of nonattendance at screening for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in older women: Nonattendees’ perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Marie Dahl
  • Jes Lindholt
  • Rikke Søgaard
  • Lars Frost
  • Lene Søndergaard Andersen
  • Vibeke Lorentzen

Abstract

Aims and objectives This study explored nonattendees’ perspectives on a screening programme for cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus among women aged 60–77 years. Background Nonattendance in screening is a common concern and has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Whether nonattendees need targeted information to participate in screening is unknown. Thus, it is important to explore the reasons for nonattendance, particularly as nonattendees’ perspectives have not been fully explored. Design An interview study. Methods The data were obtained through semistructured interviews with 10 women sampled from a population who declined to participate in a women's screening programme for cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus. Additionally, reflective notes on the interview context were documented. The data were collected in 2013. Kvale and Brinkmann's method for data analysis was applied. Results All informants found the screening offer personally irrelevant, but this belief was changeable. The informants’ perceptions of screening were based on subjective health and risk beliefs, personal knowledge of diseases and the screening programme, and distrust in the healthcare system. Conclusion Personal experiences, beliefs and self‐protective strategies influence individuals’ subjective interpretations of a screening programme's relevance. The perception that screening is irrelevant seems to be rooted in nonattendees’ personal health‐related assessment and knowledge. Consequently, whether nonattendance is determined by an informed decision is questionable. Negative experiences with the healthcare system led to hesitation towards screening in general. Relevance to clinical practice This study is relevant to healthcare workers as well as decision‐makers from a screening and preventive perspective. The findings highlight important issues that should be addressed to encourage invitees to accept screening invitations and to facilitate informed decision‐making about screening participation.

Suggested Citation

  • Marie Dahl & Jes Lindholt & Rikke Søgaard & Lars Frost & Lene Søndergaard Andersen & Vibeke Lorentzen, 2018. "An interview‐based study of nonattendance at screening for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in older women: Nonattendees’ perspectives," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5-6), pages 939-948, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:5-6:p:939-948
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14018
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Culica, D. & Rohrer, J. & Ward, M. & Hilsenrath, P. & Pomrehn, P., 2002. "Medical checkups: Who does not get them?," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 92(1), pages 88-91.
    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. Sarah Hoeck & Johan Van der Heyden & Joanna Geerts & Guido Van Hal, 2013. "Preventive Care Use among the Belgian Elderly Population: Does Socio-Economic Status Matter?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, December.
    2. Di Novi, Cinzia & Kovacic, Matija & Orso, Cristina Elisa, 2024. "Online health information seeking behavior, healthcare access, and health status during exceptional times," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 675-690.
    3. Yugang Li & Qi Zhang & Xiaohong Li & Mei Sun & Jun Lu & Gang Chen, 2020. "Association between Participation in Annual Physical Examinations and Risk Factors for Noncommunicable Diseases in Adults with Disabilities: Evidence from Shanghai, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-10, May.
    4. Quan-Hoang Vuong & Tung-Manh Ho & Hong-Kong Nguyen & Thu-Trang Vuong, 2018. "Healthcare consumers’ sensitivity to costs: a reflection on behavioural economics from an emerging market," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Whitney Witt & Kristin Litzelman & Carmen Mandic & Lauren Wisk & John Hampton & Paul Creswell & Carissa Gottlieb & Ronald Gangnon, 2011. "Healthcare-Related Financial Burden Among Families in the U.S.: The Role of Childhood Activity Limitations and Income," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 308-326, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:5-6:p:939-948. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.