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

Abstract

Background: Understanding women's life conditions regarding their non-participation in different healthpromoting 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 nonparticipation 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.

Screening for breast and cervical cancer among OST patients: a qualitative study of barriers and suggested interventions to increase participation

“…Still, similarities to previous findings regarding Swedish women in general can be noted as well. For instance, the tendency to disregard one’s own interests and needs to the benefit of those of others has been reported as a factor that may affect breast cancer screening behaviour (Norfjord van Zyl et al, 2020 ). Neither is it unique to WWUD to harbour negative feelings about screening procedures, or have interests or responsibilities that may conflict with the need to utilize preventive care (Oscarsson et al, 2008 ; Sterlingova & Lundén, 2018 ).…”

“…The increased risks associated with breast and cervical cancer among WWUD indicate the crucial importance of screening attendance in this group. In Sweden, screening compliance and experiences of WWUD remain unknown, despite an abundance of studies on Swedish women in general (Norfjord Van Zyl et al, 2018 ; Norfjord van Zyl et al, 2020 ; Oscarsson et al, 2008 ; Sterlingova & Lundén, 2018 ; Östensson et al, 2015 ). Internationally, studies on cervical screening point towards lower rates among WWUD both in and outside of OST treatment (Abrams et al, 2012 ; Haddad et al, 2015 ), as well as a lower likelihood of a recent screening in women currently using illicit drugs (Kricker et al, 2013 ).…”

Remote diagnostics and monitoring using microwave technique – improving healthcare in rural areas and in exceptional situations

“…Thus, participation in screening is more challenging especially for people living in rural areas. Another challenge is that 64-87% of the invited women participate in these regular screenings [42][43][44]. The participation depends on the invited woman's level of education, socioeconomic background, domicile, and mother tongue [42].…”

Rainbows over the world’s public health: determinants of health models in the past, present, and future

“…Rainbow determinants of health models are also commonly encountered in public health research, despite the limitations in their own empirical evidence base discussed above. Examples include supporting the problem formulation stage (for instance, two recent doctoral theses from Sweden [ 69 ] and Norway [ 70 ]); as a logic model in systematic reviews to provide a structure on which to identify different study types and to present their findings [ 33 , 71 ]; and even in semistructured interviews, for instance to explore individual attitudes to the prevention of illness, including agency and where responsibility lies [ 72 ]. These diverse uses illustrate the value of the model for helping expanding perspectives outwards and accounting for different layers of influence on health [ 8 ].…”