Abstract
OBJECTIVES--To determine the factors that deter ethnic minority women living in east London from attending their general practitioner for cervical cytology screening. DESIGN--Qualitative study by means of focus group discussions between October 1993 and March 1994. SETTING--East London. SUBJECTS--Non-health specific established community groups and specially convened groups of Bengali, Kurdish, Turkish, Urdu and Punjabi, and Chinese speaking women. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--The spontaneous views of non-English speaking women resident in east London on cervical screening, focusing on attitudes to screening, their experiences of the cervical cytology screening services as currently provided, and their knowledge and beliefs about cervical screening. RESULTS--Some reported attitudinal barriers to cervical cytology screening such as fear of cancer were not deterrents. Administrative and language barriers were more important, as were inadequate surgery premises and concerns about sterility. CONCLUSION--Contrary to popular belief among general practitioners in east London, women from ethnic minorities are enthusiastic about cervical cytology screening once they understand the purpose of the test and the call and recall procedures. It is possible to consult with community groups in their own language through focus group discussions, working with bilingual health advocates who have had a short practical training in facilitating small group discussions. This form of user consultation could be carried out focusing on other aspects of health promotion.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Beardow R., Oerton J., Victor C. Evaluation of the cervical cytology screening programme in an inner city health district. BMJ. 1989 Jul 8;299(6691):98–100. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6691.98. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bowling A., Jacobson B. Screening: the inadequacy of population registers. BMJ. 1989 Mar 4;298(6673):545–546. doi: 10.1136/bmj.298.6673.545. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cullum D. E., Savory J. N. Patient preferences for cervical cytology. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983 Jul 30;287(6388):329–330. doi: 10.1136/bmj.287.6388.329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Elkind A. K., Haran D., Eardley A., Spencer B. Reasons for non-attendance for computer-managed cervical screening: pilot interviews. Soc Sci Med. 1988;27(6):651–660. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(88)90014-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mann J. I. The quest for normoglycaemia: is it worth the effort? N Z Med J. 1990 Jun 27;103(892):292–293. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nathoo V. Investigation of non-responders at a cervical cancer screening clinic in Manchester. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1988 Apr 9;296(6628):1041–1042. doi: 10.1136/bmj.296.6628.1041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pierce M., Lundy S., Palanisamy A., Winning S., King J. Prospective randomised controlled trial of methods of call and recall for cervical cytology screening. BMJ. 1989 Jul 15;299(6692):160–162. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6692.160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ross S. K. Cervical cytology screening and government policy. BMJ. 1989 Jul 8;299(6691):101–104. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6691.101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sansom C. D., MacInerney J., Oliver V., Wakefield J. Differential response to recall in a cervical screening programme. Br J Prev Soc Med. 1975 Mar;29(1):40–47. doi: 10.1136/jech.29.1.40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shroff K. J., Corrigan A. M., Bosher M., Edmonds M. P., Sacks D., Coleman D. V. Cervical screening in an inner city area: response to a call system in general practice. BMJ. 1988 Nov 19;297(6659):1317–1318. doi: 10.1136/bmj.297.6659.1317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]