Cervical screening result communication: A focus-Group investigation of english women's experiences and needs

Quality and Safety in Health Care

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 334-338

  Goldsmith, M R ^a   Austoker, J ^a   Marsh, G ^b   Kehoe, S T ^c   Bankhead, C R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b JOHN RADCLIFFE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; COLPOSCOPY; COMMUNICATION; ENGLAND; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; STATE MEDICINE; TIME FACTORS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 61449239187     PISSN: 14753898     EISSN: 14753901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2007.023275     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Department of Health. Choosing health: making healthy choices easier. London: Department of Health, 2004.
2. Bonevski B, Sanson FR, Girgis A, et al. Women's experiences of having a colposcopic examination: Self-reported satisfaction with care, perceived needs and consequences. J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;18:462- 70.
3. Gath DH, Hallam N, Mynors-Wallis L, et al. Emotional reactions in women attending a UK colposcopy clinic. J Epidemiol Community Health 1995;49:79-83.
4. Somerset M, Peters TJ. Intervening to reduce anxiety for women with mild dyskaryosis: do we know what works and why? J Adv Nurs 1998;28:563-70.
5. Whynes DK, Clarke K, Philips Z, et al. Cervical cancer screening and perceived information needs. Health Educ 2005;105:289-303.
6. Forss A, Tishelman C, Widmark C, et al. Women's experiences of cervical cellular changes: an unintentional transition from health to liminality? Sociol Health Illn 2004;26:306-25.
7. Karasz A, McKee MD, Roybal K. Women's experiences of abnormal cervical cytology: illness representations, care processes, and outcomes. Ann Fam Med 2003;1:196-202.
8. Kavanagh AM, Broom DH. Women's understanding of abnormal cervical smear test results: a qualitative interview study. BMJ 1997;314:1388-91.
9. NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre. Cervical Screening Programme, England: 2005-06 Bulletin 2006/12/HSCIC. Leeds: NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre, 2006.
10. Goldsmith MR, Bankhead CR, Austoker J. Improving the quality of the written information sent to women about cervical screening: Guidelines on the content of letters and leaflets. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes 2006 (NHSCSP Publication No. 27).
11. Philips Z, Johnson S, Avis M, et al. Communicating mild and borderline abnormal cervical smear results: how and what are women told? Cytopathology 2002;13:355-63.
12. Marteau TM, Senior V, Sasieni P. Women's understanding of a ''normal smear test result'': experimental questionnaire based study. BMJ 2001;322:526-8.
13. French DP, Maissi E, Marteau TM. Psychological costs of inadequate cervical smear test results. Br J Cancer 2004;91:1887-92.
14. French DP, Maissi E, Marteau TM. The psychological costs of inadequate cervical smear test results: three-month follow-up. Psychooncology 2006;15:498-508.
15. Zapka JG, Puleo E, Taplin SH, et al. Processes of care in cervical and breast cancer screening and follow-up-the importance of communication. Prev Med 2004;39:81-90.
16. Fylan F. Screening for cervical cancer: a review of women's attitudes, knowledge, and behaviour. Br J Gen Pract 1998;48:1509- 14.
17. Duggal HV, Olowokure B, Caswell M, et al. Comparing the information experience of women invited for cervical screening for the first time in 1994 with 2001. Eur J Epidemiol 2004;19:433-5.
18. Goldsmith MR, Bankhead CR, Kehoe ST, et al. Information and cervical screening: A qualitative study of English women's awareness, understanding and information needs about HPV. J Med Screen 2007;14:29-33.
19. Woodrow C, Watson E, Rozmovits L, et al. Public perceptions of communicating information about bowel cancer screening. Health Expect 2008;11:16-25.
20. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter,1967.
21. Bowling A. Unstructured interviewing and focus groups. In: Research methods in health-investigating health and health services. 2nd edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2002:377-401.
22. Twinn S. The analysis of focus group data: a challenge to the rigour of qualitative research. NT Res 2000;5:140-7.
23. Posner T, Vessey M. Prevention of cervical cancer: the patient's view. London: King's Fund, 1988:44-95.
24. Austoker J, Davey C, Jansen C. Improving the quality of the written information sent to women about cervical screening. Part 1-Evidence-based criteria for the content of letters and leaflets; Part 2-Evaluation of the content of current letters and leaflets. Sheffield: NHS Cervical Screening Programme and Cancer Research Campaign 1997 (NHSCSP Publication No. 6).
25. McKee MD, Caban A, Burton W, et al. Women's knowledge and experience of atypical Pap results in a high risk community. Women Health 2002;36:19-31.
26. Goins KV, Zapka JG, Geiger AM, et al. Implementation of systems strategies for breast and cervical cancer screening services in health maintenance organisations. Am J Manag Care 2003;9:745-55.
27. Peres M, Wellman M. Notification of Papanicolaou smear results: a survey of women's experiences and preferred means of notification. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2001;41:82-5.
28. Gray NM, Sharp L, Cotton SC, et al. Psychological effects of a low-grade abnormal cervical smear test result: anxiety and associated factors. Br J Cancer 2006;94:1253-62.
29. Maissi E, Marteau TM, Hankins M, et al. Psychological impact of human papillomavirus testing in women with borderline or mildly dyskaryotic cervical smear test results: cross sectional questionnaire study. BMJ 2004;328:1293.
30. Rogstad KE. The psychological impact of abnormal cytology and colposcopy. BJOG 2002;109:364-8.
31. Moss S, Gray A, Legood R, et al. Effect of testing for human papillomavirus as a triage during screening for cervical cancer: observational before and after study. BMJ 2006;332:83-5.
32. Legood R, Gray A, Wolstenholme J, et al. Lifetime effects, costs, and cost effectiveness of testing for human papillomavirus to manage low grade cytological abnormalities: results of the NHS pilot studies. BMJ 2006;332:79-85.