IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/her/chewps/2006-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A synthesis of qualitative research on cervical cancer screening behaviour: Women?s perceptions of the barriers and motivators to screen and the implications for policy and practice, CHERE Working Paper 2006/7

Author

Listed:
  • Marion Haas

    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Sandy Fowler

    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

Abstract

Cervical cancer is one of the most preventable and treatable cancers. It has been estimated that up to 90% of the most common type of cervical cancer may be prevented if cell changes are detected and treated early. Early detection is undertaken using a Pap test. In most Western countries, including Australia, and in many less developed countries, screening for cervical cancer is provided to women in the form of an organised program. These programs typically provide Pap tests free or at low cost, at the point of delivery. However, as most cancers occur in women who have never or rarely screened, increasing the rate of screening remains an important issue. Numerous studies have identified the variables associated with women rarely or never screening. Older, poorer women, women living in rural communities and those from non-European ethnic backgrounds (in Australia, especially those who do not speak English) are much less likely to screen than their younger, richer, urban-dwelling, English-speaking sisters. This type of information can be used to target women less likely to screen but does not address what women perceive to be the major barriers to their having a Pap test or what messages might be most effective in convincing them to have the test. A number of qualitative studies have examined these issues. In this project, the results of such studies have been synthesised in an attempt to answer two questions: 1. Why don?t some women have Pap tests? 2. What would work to encourage women who currently do not screen to change their behaviour? This synthesis adopted the meta-ethnographic approach as described in Campbell et al (2003). The results from 16 papers were appraised in terms of the quality of the research undertaken as well as results and conclusions. The results indicate that the majority of women have heard of or know about the Pap test. However, many were misinformed about the details of the test and its implications. Women may not think a Pap test is relevant for them for a number of reasons: many believe that it detects cancer (rather than cervical abnormalities which may or may not be pre-cancerous lesions). This may lead to under-screening if a woman is afraid of cancer or believes that screening is only necessary if and when symptoms appear. Women may also not screen if their cultural and/or religious beliefs connect cervical cancer with sexually transmitted infections acquired as the result of pre-marital or extra-marital sexual contact (ie promiscuity). Common barriers to accessing Pap tests included the direct cost of the test and various opportunity costs in terms of time and availability of childcare. The lack of availability of female health care providers was also an important barrier. The synthesis has indicated that there are some standard preferences and barriers which cross cultural, demographic and socio-economic lines that could be considered by practitioners and policy makers attempting to improve services and increase screening uptake. Practitioners can encourage women to screen by emphasising the curable nature of cervical lesions, being honest about the relationship between sexual activity and cervical cancer and explicitly recommending a Pap test. There is also a need for more individually tailored approaches to target specific ethnic groups. An understanding of community-specific beliefs is invaluable to health professionals if they are to provide cultural sensitive and appropriate services.

Suggested Citation

  • Marion Haas & Sandy Fowler, 2006. "A synthesis of qualitative research on cervical cancer screening behaviour: Women?s perceptions of the barriers and motivators to screen and the implications for policy and practice, CHERE Working Pap," Working Papers 2006/7, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
  • Handle: RePEc:her:chewps:2006/7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.chere.uts.edu.au/pdf/wp2006_7.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2006
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Campbell, Rona & Pound, Pandora & Pope, Catherine & Britten, Nicky & Pill, Roisin & Morgan, Myfanwy & Donovan, Jenny, 2003. "Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 671-684, 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. Maya Maor & Moflah Ataika & Pesach Shvartzman & Maya Lavie Ajayi, 2021. "“I Had to Rediscover Our Healthy Food”: An Indigenous Perspective on Coping with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Rebecca J Bartlett Ellis & Janet L Welch, 2017. "Medication‐taking behaviours in chronic kidney disease with multiple chronic conditions: a meta‐ethnographic synthesis of qualitative studies," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5-6), pages 586-598, March.
    3. Yu‐Ting Chang & Mark Hayter & Shu‐Chen Wu, 2010. "A systematic review and meta‐ethnography of the qualitative literature: experiences of the menarche," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3‐4), pages 447-460, February.
    4. Eleri Jones & Ernestina Coast, 2013. "Social relationships and postpartum depression in South Asia: A systematic review," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 59(7), pages 690-700, November.
    5. Hansen, Henrik & Trifkovic, Neda, 2013. "Systematic Reviews: Questions, Methods and Usage," MPRA Paper 47993, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Best, Paul & Manktelow, Roger & Taylor, Brian, 2014. "Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 27-36.
    7. Oya, Carlos & Schaefer, Florian & Skalidou, Dafni, 2018. "The effectiveness of agricultural certification in developing countries: A systematic review," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 282-312.
    8. Shisei Tei & Junya Fujino, 2022. "Social ties, fears and bias during the COVID-19 pandemic: Fragile and flexible mindsets," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-7, December.
    9. Khan, Imran & Kabir, Zobaidul, 2020. "Waste-to-energy generation technologies and the developing economies: A multi-criteria analysis for sustainability assessment," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 320-333.
    10. Carles Campanyà & David Fonseca & Daniel Amo & Núria Martí & Enric Peña, 2021. "Mixed Analysis of the Flipped Classroom in the Concrete and Steel Structures Subject in the Context of COVID-19 Crisis Outbreak. A Pilot Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, May.
    11. Helle Feddersen & Tine Mechlenborg Kristiansen & Pernille Tanggaard Andersen & Kim Hørslev‐Petersen & Jette Primdahl, 2017. "Construction of meaningful identities in the context of rheumatoid arthritis, motherhood and paid work: A meta‐ethnography," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 4117-4128, December.
    12. McNeil, Ryan & Small, Will, 2014. "‘Safer environment interventions’: A qualitative synthesis of the experiences and perceptions of people who inject drugs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 151-158.
    13. Hansen, Ulla Møller & Cleal, Bryan & Willaing, Ingrid & Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, Tine, 2018. "Managing type 1 diabetes in the context of work life: A matter of containment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 70-77.
    14. Skinner, Mark W. & Yantzi, Nicole M. & Rosenberg, Mark W., 2009. "Neither rain nor hail nor sleet nor snow: Provider perspectives on the challenges of weather for home and community care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 682-688, February.
    15. Lambert, Helen, 2006. "Accounting for EBM: Notions of evidence in medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2633-2645, June.
    16. Ellis, J. & Boger, E. & Latter, S. & Kennedy, A. & Jones, F. & Foster, C. & Demain, S., 2017. "Conceptualisation of the ‘good’ self-manager: A qualitative investigation of stakeholder views on the self-management of long-term health conditions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 25-33.
    17. Crovini, Chiara & Ossola, Giovanni & Britzelmaier, Bernd, 2021. "How to reconsider risk management in SMEs? An Advanced, Reasoned and Organised Literature Review," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 118-134.
    18. Reid, Bernie & Sinclair, Marlene & Barr, Owen & Dobbs, Frank & Crealey, Grainne, 2009. "A meta-synthesis of pregnant women's decision-making processes with regard to antenatal screening for Down syndrome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 1561-1573, December.
    19. Al-Janabi, Hareth & Coast, Joanna & Flynn, Terry N., 2008. "What do people value when they provide unpaid care for an older person? A meta-ethnography with interview follow-up," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 111-121, July.
    20. Beatriz de Souza Mello Gonçalves & Flávio Leonel de Carvalho & Paula de Camargo Fiorini, 2022. "Circular Economy and Financial Aspects: A Systematic Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-41, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cervical cancer; screening; Pap tests;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:her:chewps:2006/7. 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: Liz Chinchen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chusyau.html .

    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.