Health education to improve repeat participation in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme: Evaluation of a leaflet tailored to previous participants

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 121-131

  Drossaert, Constance H C ^a   Boer, Henk ^a   Seydel, Erwin R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Breast cancer screening; Elaboration Likelihood Model; Health education; Participation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; BREAST CANCER; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING TEST;

EID: 0030198461     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0738-3991(96)00889-0     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Ineveld BM, van Ootmarssen GJ, Koning HJ, Boer R, van der Maas PJ. How cost-effective is breast cancer screening in different EC countries? Eur J Cancer 1993; 29: 1663-1668.
2. Beemsterboer PMM, de Koning HJ, Warmerdam PG, Boer R, Swart E, Dierks ML, Robra BP. Prediction of the effects and costs of breast cancer screening in Germany. Int J Cancer 1994; 58: 623-628.
3. Peeters PHM, Verbeek ALM, Hendriks JHCL, van Bon MJH. Screening for Breast Cancer in Nijmegen. Report of six screening rounds. In: The extent of side-effects in screening for breast cancer. Dissertation, Nijmegen, 1989.
4. De Waard F, Colette HJA, Rombach JJ, Baanders-van Halewijn EA, Honing C. The DOM project for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer, Utrecht, The Netherlands. J Chron Dis 1984; 37: 1-44.
5. De Waard F, Colette HJA, Rombach JJ, Baanders-van Halewijn EA, Honing C. Bevolkingsonderzoek op Borstkanker, een terugblik op het DOM-project. (Mass screening for breast cancer, review of the DOM-project). Gezondheid en Samenleving 1987; 8: 167-173.
6. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE. The Swedish two county trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer: recent results and calculation of benefit. J Epidemiol Comm Health 1989; 43: 107-114.
7. Baker LH. Breast cancer detection demonstration project: five year summary report. CA-A Cancer J Clin 1982; 32: 194-225.
8. Owens GR, Daly J, Heron K, Leinster SJ. Psychological and social characteristics of attenders for breast screen7 ing. Psychol Health 1987; 1: 303-313.
9. Maclean UD, Sinfield D, Klein S, Harnden B. Women who decline breast screening. J Epidemiol Comm Health 1984; 38: 278-283.
10. Calnan M. The health belief model and participation in programmes for the early detection of breast cancer: a comparative analysis. Soc Sci Med 1984; 19: 823-830.
11. Eardley A, Elkind A. A pilot study of attendance for breast cancer screening. Soc Sci Med 1990; 30: 693-699.
12. Hobbs P, Smith A, George WD, Selwood RA. Acceptors and rejectors of an invitation to undergo breast screening compared to those who referred themselves. J Epidemiol Comm Health 1980; 34: 19-22.
13. Rutledge DN, Hartman WH, Kinman PO, Winfield AC. Exploration of factors affecting mammography behaviors. Prev Med 1988; 17: 412-422.
14. Fink R, Shapiro S, Lewison J. The reluctant participant in a breast cancer screening program. Public Health Rep 1968; 83: 479-490.
15. Rimer BK, Kasper Keintz M, Kessler HB, Engstrom PF. Why women resist screening mammography: patient-related barriers. Radiology 1989; 172: 243-246.
16. Vernon SW, Laville EA, Jackson GL. Participation in breast screening programs: a review. Soc Sci Med 1990; 30: 1107-1118.
17. Fink R, Shapiro S, Roester R. Impact of efforts to increase participation in repetitive screenings for early breast cancer detection. Am J Public Health 1972; 62: 328-336.
18. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief attitude intention and behaviour; an introduction to theory and research. Reading MA: Addison Wesley, 1975.
19. Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in psychosociological activation and health promoting behaviour. In: Madden IV J, Mathysse S, Barchas J, editors. Adaptation, learning and affect. New York: Raven Press, 1986.
20. Janz NK, Becker MH. The Health Belief Model: a decade later. Health Educ Q 1984; 11: 1-47.
21. De Vries H, Dijkstra M, Kuhlman P. Self-efficacy, the third factor besides attitude and subjective norm as a predictor of behavioural intentions. Health Educ Res 1988; 3: 273-282.
22. De Vries H, Backbier E, Kok G, Dijkstra M. The impact of social influences in the context of attitude, self-efficacy, intention and previous behaviour as predictors of smoking onset. J Appl Soc Psych 1995; 25: 237-257.
23. Drossaert CHC, Boer H, Seydel ER. Geen aanwijzingen voor borstkanker gevonden: De effecten van een negatieve screeningsuitslag na het bevolkingsonderzoek borstkanker op particpatie-bereidheid en patient-delay (No indications for breast cancer: the effects of a favourable screening result after participating in breast cancer screening on re-participation intention and patient delay). Aspekt 37. Enschede: Universiteit Twente, Vakgroep Psychologie, 1992.
24. Boer H, Seydel ER, Taal E. Knowledge gap effects in health education on mass screening with mammography. In: Dauwalder JP, editor. Psychology and Promotion of Health. Bern: Hogrefe & Huber, 1994.
25. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In: Berkowitz, editor. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 18. New York: Academic Press, 1986.
26. Cacioppo JY, Petty RE. The need for cognition. J Pers Soc Psych 1982; 47: 116-131.
27. Pieters RGM, Verplanken B, Modde JM. Neiging tot nadenken: Samenhang met beredeneerd gedrag. (Need for cognition: correlation with reasoned behaviour). Ned Tijdschr Psych 1987; 42: 62-70.
28. Scaf-Klomp W, Van den Heuvel WJA. Participatie in retrospectief (Participation in retrospective). Groningen: Noordelijk Centrum voor Gezondheidsvraagstukken, 1993.