Author:
Bongaerts Thomas H. G.,Büchner Frederike L.,Crone Matty R.,van Exel Job,Guicherit Onno R.,Numans Mattijs E.,Nierkens Vera
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The Netherlands hosts, as many other European countries, three population-based cancer screening programmes (CSPs). The overall uptake among these CSPs is high, but has decreased over recent years. Especially in highly urbanized regions the uptake rates tend to fall below the minimal effective rate of 70% set by the World Health Organization. Understanding the reasons underlying the decision of citizens to partake in a CPS are essential in order to optimize the current screening participation rates. The aim of this study was to explore the various perspectives concerning cancer screening among inhabitants of The Hague, a highly urbanized region of the Netherlands.
Methods
A Q-methodology study was conducted to provide insight in the prevailing perspectives on partaking in CSPs. All respondents were inhabitants of the city of The Hague, the Netherlands. In an online application they ranked a set of 31 statements, based on the current available literature and clustered by the Integrated Change model, into a 9-column forced ranking grid according to level of agreement, followed by a short survey. Respondents were asked to participate in a subsequent interview to explain their ranking. By-person factor analysis was used to identify distinct perspectives, which were interpreted using data from the rankings and interviews.
Results
Three distinct perspectives were identified: 1). “Positive about participation”, 2). “Thoughtful about participation”, and 3). “Fear drives participation”. These perspectives provide insight into how potential respondents, living in an urbanized region in the Netherlands, decide upon partaking in CSPs.
Conclusions
Since CSPs will only be effective when participation rates are sufficiently high, it is essential to have insight into the different perspectives among potential respondents concerning partaking in a CSP. This study adds new insights concerning these perspectives and suggests several ideas for future optimization of the CSPs.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference63 articles.
1. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Group of Chief Scientific Advisors. Cancer screening in the European Union. 2022.
2. van Ballegooijen M, van den Akker-van ME, Patnick J, Lynge E, Arbyn M, Anttila A, et al. Overview of important cervical cancer screening process values in European Union (EU) countries, and tentative predictions of the corresponding effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36(17):2177–88.
3. van Ballegooijen M, Hermens R. Cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36(17):2244–6.
4. European Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Working Group, von Karsa L, Patnick J, Segnan N, Atkin W, Halloran S, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: Overview and introduction to the full Supplement publication. Endoscopy. 2013;45(1):51–9.
5. Verbeek ALM, Broeders MJM. Evaluation of The Netherlands breast cancer screening programme. Ann Oncol. 2003;14(8):1203–5.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献