Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

Non-participation in mammographic screening – experiences of women from a region in Sweden

Authors: Maria Norfjord van Zyl, Sharareh Akhavan, Per Tillgren, Margareta Asp

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Understanding women’s life conditions regarding their non-participation in different health-promoting and disease-preventing activities is important as it may draw attention to potential areas for improvement in the healthcare sector. Mammographic screening, a disease-preventing service, facilitates early detection of any potential malignancies and consequently prompts initiation of treatment. The reasons for non-participation in mammographic screening can be understood from different perspectives, such as socioeconomic and lifestyle-related determinants of health. This study aims to gain a deeper understanding of women’s experiences and perceptions about non-participation in mammographic screening in a Swedish region with a single mammographic facility.

Methods

Data from individual semi-structured interviews, conducted in 2018 with eleven women between the ages of 48 and 73, were analysed by a qualitative content analysis.

Results

The findings reveal three main categories: 1) doubts regarding mammographic screening and its organisation, 2) sense and sensibility in the decision to refrain from mammographic screening, and 3) dependency and options. These three categories indicate aspects, such as the individual’s life situation, accessibility to the offered service, and the flexibility of the healthcare system, that need to be considered to improve the organisation of mammographic screening.

Conclusion

Listening to the women’s voices regarding their experiences and perceptions about mammographic screening is important as individual characteristics and social circumstances interact with healthcare and affect the degree of participation.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
World Health Organization. The Ottawa Charter. Health Promotion. 1986;1(4):iii-v.
2.
Frenk J. Health and the economy: a vital relationship. Organisation for economic cooperation and development. The OECD Observer. 2004;243:9–10.
3.
Donabedian A. Models for organizing the delivery of personal health services and criteria for evaluating them. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. 1972;50(4):103–54.CrossRef
4.
Socialstyrelsen [National Board of Health and Welfare]. Screening för bröstcancer – Rekommendation och bedömningsunderlag. In: Screening for breast cancer – Recommendations and basis for assessment. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen; 2014.
5.
Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1968.
6.
Vainio H, Bianchini F. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention. Breast cancer screening, vol. 7. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC]; 2002.
7.
8.
Duffy S, Chen T, Smith R, Yen A, Tabar LR. artificial controversies in breast cancer screening. (report). Breast Cancer Manag. 2013;2(6):519–28.CrossRef
9.
Puliti D, Duffy SW, Miccinesi G, De Koning H, Lynge E, Zappa M, Paci E. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen. 2012;19(Suppl 1):42–56.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380(9855):1778.CrossRef
11.
Bankhead CR, Brett J, Bukach C, Webster P, Stewart-Brown S, Munafo M, Austoker J. The impact of screening on future health-promoting behaviours and health beliefs: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(42):1–92.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Statens Offentliga Utredningar [Official Reports of the Swedish Government]. En nationell cancerstrategi för framtiden [A national cancer strategy for the future]. Stockholm: Statens Offentliga Utredningar [Official Reports of the Swedish Government]; 2009.
13.
Dahlgren G, Whitehead M. European strategies for tackling social inequities in health: levelling up, part 2. Copenhagen: World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe; 2007.
14.
Zidar MN, Larm P, Tillgren P, Akhavan S. Non-attendance of mammographic screening: the roles of age and municipality in a population-based Swedish sample. Int J Equity Health. 2015;14:157.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Jewett PI, Gangnon RE, Elkin E, Hampton JM, Jacobs EA, Malecki K, LaGro J, Newcomb PA, Trentham-Dietz A. Geographic access to mammography facilities and frequency of mammography screening. Ann Epidemiol. 2018;28(2):65–71. e62.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Huang B, Dignan M, Han D, Johnson O. Does distance matter? Distance to mammography facilities and stage at diagnosis of breast cancer in Kentucky. J Rural Health. 2009;25(4):366–71.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Jensen Flytkjaer L, Pedersen A, Andersen B, Fenger-Grøn M, Vedsted P. Distance to screening site and non-participation in screening for breast cancer: a population-based study. J Public Health. 2013;36(2):292–9.CrossRef
18.
Fallowfield L, Rodway A, Baum M. What are the psychological factors influencing attendance, non-attendance and re-attendance at a breast screening Centre? J R Soc Med. 1990;83(9):547–51.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Watson-Johnson LC, DeGroff A, Steele CB, Revels M, Smith JL, Justen E, Barron-Simpson R, Sanders L, Richardson LC. Mammography adherence: a qualitative study. J Women's Health. 2011;20(12):1887–94.CrossRef
20.
Sterlingova T, Lundén M. Why do women refrain from mammography screening? Radiography. 2018;24(1):e19–24.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Johansson I, Berterö CM. Getting no respect: barriers to mammography for a group of Swedish women. Health Care Women Int. 2003;24(1):8.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Lagerlund M, Widmark C, Lambe M, Tishelman C. Rationales for attending or not attending mammography screening – a focus group study among women in Sweden. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2001;10(5):429–42.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Kommissionen för jämlik hälsa [The Swedish Commission for Equity in Health]. Nästa steg på vägen mot en mer jämlik hälsa. Slutbetänkande av Kommissionen för jämlik hälsa The next step towards more equity in health. In: Final report by the Swedish Commission for Equity in Health. SOU 2017:47. Stockholm: Statens Offentliga Utredningar; 2017.
24.
Edwards R, Holland J. What is qualitative interviewing? London: Bloomsbury Academic; 2013.
25.
26.
OECD/European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Sweden: Country health profile 2019, State of Health in the EU. Brussels: OECD Publishing, Paris/European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2019. https://​doi.​org/​https://​doi.​org/​10.​1787/​2dcb7ca6-en.
27.
Cancerfonden [Swedish Cancer Society]. Cancerfondens kartläggning för år 2015 [Swedish Cancer Society’s survey for 2015]. Unpublished work. Stockholm: Cancerfonden; 2015.
28.
Polit DF, Beck CT. Essentials of nursing research: appraising evidence for nursing practice. 7th ed. New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010.
29.
Manjer ÅR, Zackrisson S, Emilsson UM. On women’s ambivalence about mammography screening: support in the decision-making process a potential role for health care social workers? Br J Soc Work. 2016;46(2):480–97.CrossRef
30.
Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.; 2015.
31.
32.
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Manjer ÅR, Emilsson UM, Zackrisson S. Non-attendance in mammography screening and women’s social network: a cohort study on the influence of family composition, social support, attitudes and cancer in close relations. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;13(1):211.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
35.
LaVeist TA, Isaac LA, Williams KP. Mistrust of health care organizations is associated with underutilization of health services. Health Serv Res. 2009;44(6):2093–105.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
36.
Jensen Flytkjaer L, Pedersen A, Andersen B, Vedsted P. Self-assessed health, perceived stress and non-participation in breast cancer screening: a Danish cohort study. Prev Med. 2015;81:392–8.CrossRef
37.
Johansson E. Cancer i siffror 2018 [Cancer in figures 2018]. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen [National Board of Health and Welfare]; 2018.
38.
39.
Forssén A, Carlstedt G, Mörtberg C. Compulsive sensitivity—a consequence of caring: a qualitative investigation into women carer’s difficulties in limiting their labours. Health Care Women Int. 2005;26(8):652–71.PubMedCrossRef
40.
41.
Hemström Ö. Chapter 7. Working conditions, the work environment and health. Scand. J. Public Health. 2001;29(Suppl 58):167–84.
42.
Brustrom JE, Hunter DC. Going the distance: how far will women travel to undergo free mammography? Milit Med. 2001;166(4):347–9.CrossRef
43.
44.
Norfjord Van Zyl M, Akhavan S, Tillgren P, Asp M. Experiences and perceptions about undergoing mammographic screening: a qualitative study involving women from a county in Sweden. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Health Well-being. 2018;13(1):1521256.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
Penchansky R, Thomas JW. The concept of access: definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction. Med Care. 1981;19(2):127–40.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Jensen LF, Pedersen AF, Andersen B, Fenger-Gron M, Vedsted P. Distance to screening site and non-participation in screening for breast cancer: a population-based study. J Public Health. 2014;36(2):292–9.CrossRef
47.
Mandelblatt JS, Yabroff KR, Kerner JF. Equitable access to cancer services: a review of barriers to quality care. Cancer: Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society. 1999;86(11):2378–90.CrossRef
48.
Castro EM, Van Regenmortel T, Vanhaecht K, Sermeus W, Van Hecke A. Patient empowerment, patient participation and patient-centeredness in hospital care: a concept analysis based on a literature review. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(12):1923–39.PubMedCrossRef
49.
50.
Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105–12.PubMedCrossRef
51.
World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull. World Health Organ. 2001;79(4):373.
Metadata
Title
Non-participation in mammographic screening – experiences of women from a region in Sweden
Authors
Maria Norfjord van Zyl
Sharareh Akhavan
Per Tillgren
Margareta Asp
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8306-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Public Health 1/2020 Go to the issue

Study protocol

A randomized controlled trial to improve psychological detachment from work and well-being among employees: a study protocol comparing online CBT-based and mindfulness interventions

Research article

Evaluation of a multimedia youth anti-smoking and girls’ empowerment campaign: SKY Girls Ghana

Research article

A cross-sectional analysis of falsified, counterfeit and substandard medicines in a low-middle income country

Research article

Factors associated with unsafe work behaviours in an Iranian petrochemical company: perspectives of workers, supervisors, and safety managers

Research article

Adolescent multiple risk behaviours cluster by number of risks rather than distinct risk profiles in the ALSPAC cohort

Research article

Mortality and cause of death in physical activity and insufficient physical activity participants: a longitudinal follow-up study using a national health screening cohort