A cohort effect in cervical screening coverage?

Lancuck, L; Patnick, Julietta; Vessey, Martin

doi:10.1258/jms.2008.007068

Cited by 29 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…9,10 The 'Jade Goody Effect' seemed to have most impact on younger women, 5,9,10 which is encouraging given that coverage is poorest in this group. 11 The finding that Jade Goody's experience of cancer resulted in increased screening uptake is consistent with other celebrity cancer diagnoses, 12,13 and TV storylines. 14,15 Coverage of celebrity cancer experiences through the mass media has the potential to reach large proportions of the population, many of whom may not be easily accessible through traditional health promotion routes.…”

supporting

confidence: 69%

The Jade Goody Effect: Whose Cervical Screening Decisions Were Influenced by Her Story?

Marlow¹,

Sangha²,

Patnick³

et al. 2012

J Med Screen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives In 2009 more women attended cervical screening in England and Wales than in the previous year. Described as the 'Jade Goody Effect' this was attributed to the death from cervical cancer of a UK celebrity. The present study aimed to establish which sociodemographic characteristics were associated with being influenced by Jade Goody's story. Methods Data were collected as part of a Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS) omnibus survey using random location sampling. Women in England aged 26 -64 years were asked to report whether they felt Jade Goody's story had influenced their decisions about cervical screening over the 18 months between her death and the time of the survey. Results Data from 890 participants was included in analysis. Over a third of women felt Goody's story had influenced their decisions about cervical screening (40%). Younger women (aged 26 -35 years) were more likely to have been influenced by Goody's story than older women (56-64 year olds). There was also evidence of socioeconomic variation with women from lower socioeconomic class groups and those with fewer educational qualifications more likely to say they had been influenced by Goody's story. Conclusions The 'Jade Goody Effect', as acknowledged by women themselves, was more pronounced among young women and influenced screening decisions more markedly among those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Narrative communication may be an effective way to encourage attendance at cervical cancer screening and reach groups of the population that are difficult to reach using traditional intervention methods.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 69%

The Jade Goody Effect: Whose Cervical Screening Decisions Were Influenced by Her Story?

Marlow¹,

Sangha²,

Patnick³

et al. 2012

J Med Screen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 In 2012-2013 78.3% were screened at least once in the last five years, below the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme's (NHSCSP) target of 80%. [3][4][5][6] Inequalities in the uptake of cancer screening have been well documented, with poor uptake associated with ethnic minority populations and social deprivation. 7,8 Barriers to attendance cited by women include fear or embarrassment, pain, the gender of the sample taker, inconvenient appointment times, and difficulty arranging child-care or time off work.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomized controlled trial in non-responders from Newcastle upon Tyne invited to return a self-sample for Human Papillomavirus testing versus repeat invitation for cervical screening

Cadman

Wilkes

Mansour³

et al. 2014

J Med Screen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Non-attenders for cervical screening are at increased risk of cervical cancer. Studies offering self-sampling for high-risk Human Papillomavirus (HrHPV) testing have shown greater uptake than sending another invitation for cytology. Objectives: To explore whether uptake would increase in a less diverse, more stable population than the previous English study, which demonstrated a lower response rate than other studies. The primary objective was whether non-attenders were more likely to respond to a postal invitation, including kit, to collect a self-sample compared with a further invitation for cytology screening. The secondary objective was whether women with an abnormal result would attend for follow-up. Methods: 6000 non-attenders for screening in this pragmatic, randomized (1:1) controlled trial in Newcastle-upon-Tyne were sent an HPV self-sample kit (intervention) or a further invitation for cytology screening (comparator). Results: 411(13%) responded to the intervention, returning a self-sample (247(8%)) or attending for cytology (164(5%)), compared with 183(6%) attending for cytology, relative risk 2.25 (95% CI 1.90-2.65) (comparator arm). Of those testing hrHPV positive (32(13%)), 19(59%) subsequently attended cytology screening. Of those in the intervention group who attended for cytology screening without returning an hrHPV self-sample (n ¼ 164), 5% (n ¼ 8) were referred for colposcopy -all attended. In the comparator group eight of the nine referred for colposcopy attended. Conclusion: Persistent non-responders to invitations for cervical screening are significantly more likely to respond to a postal invitation to return a self-collected sample for HPV testing than a further invitation for cytology screening. However, just over half followed up on this positive HPV result.

show abstract

“…Some authors have suggested a cohort effect, hypothesising that nonattendance reflects broader social disillusionment. 5,6 Others have suggested that young women experience more barriers to attendance, such as embarrassment, 7 lower perceived risk, 8 difficulties with appointment times, 9 or not being registered with a GP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring age differences in reasons for nonattendance for cervical screening: a qualitative study

Waller

Jackowska²,

Marlow

et al. 2011

BJOG

105

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To explore differences in barriers to attendance at cervical screening across age groups because coverage of the cervical screening programme in England has been falling, particularly among women in the youngest age group (25-29 years).Design A qualitative study.Setting A university in London.Sample Professionals working in the screening field (n = 12) and women of varying ages who had either never attended for cervical screening or did not attend regularly (n = 46). MethodsIn Study 1 we interviewed professionals to elicit their views on the reasons for lower screening attendance in young women. In Study 2, we carried out four focus groups (n = 27) and 19 individual interviews with under-screened women to explore their barriers to attendance. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using Framework Analysis.Results Reasons for nonattendance were many and varied. Health professionals identified population-level factors, service provision issues, time pressures, risk perceptions, lack of knowledge and psychological barriers. The nonattenders fell into two groups: those who had made an active decision not to take part (who tended to be older), and those who intended to be screened but did not attend (predominantly younger women). Practical barriers were raised more often by younger women whereas older women had more negative attitudes to screening.Conclusion This study provides rich data on the complex reasons why women do not attend for cervical screening. It points to age differences in barriers to screening, and suggests that addressing practical issues such as appointment systems and clinic times may have a positive impact on attendance in young women.

show abstract

A cohort effect in cervical screening coverage?

Cited by 29 publications

References 1 publication

The Jade Goody Effect: Whose Cervical Screening Decisions Were Influenced by Her Story?

The Jade Goody Effect: Whose Cervical Screening Decisions Were Influenced by Her Story?

A randomized controlled trial in non-responders from Newcastle upon Tyne invited to return a self-sample for Human Papillomavirus testing versus repeat invitation for cervical screening

Exploring age differences in reasons for nonattendance for cervical screening: a qualitative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About