Barriers to mammography among Chinese women in Singapore: a focus group approach

Straughan, Paulin Tay; Seow, Adeline

doi:10.1093/her/10.4.431

Cited by 25 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The third factor concerned perceived barriers to mammographic screening. The two most highly loaded items related to concerns about modesty, also previously identified in the literature (Mo 1992, Straughan & Seow 1995, Kwok et al. 2006).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chinese Breast Cancer Screening Beliefs Questionnaire: development and psychometric testing with Chinese‐Australian women

Kwok

Fethney

White

2009

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

“…2003, Kwok & Sullivan 2006). Modesty is a cultural characteristic of Chinese women, and discussing any topic related to the breast is considered inappropriate and embarrassing (Mo 1992, Straughan & Seow 1995, Kwok et al. 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chinese Breast Cancer Screening Beliefs Questionnaire: development and psychometric testing with Chinese‐Australian women

Kwok

Fethney

White

2009

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kee et al ranked fear of pain during mam‐ mography as the fifth most cited reason women gave for non‐attendance in the Northern Ireland Breast Screening Programme 3 . In a focus group study, Straughan and Seow reported that mammography was not a very popular form of screening and that most women thought that fear of pain during mammography contributed to the low uptake of breast screening in Singapore 4 . Aro et al found that significantly more first round non‐attenders than attenders at the Finnish Breast Screening Programme expected mammography screening to be painful and concluded that expectation of pain was predictive of non‐attendance 5 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 In a focus group study, Straughan and Seow reported that mammography was not a very popular form of screening and that most women thought that fear of pain during mammography contributed to the low uptake of breast screening in Singapore. 4 Aro et al found that significantly more first round non-attenders than attenders at the Finnish Breast Screening Programme expected mammography screening to be painful and concluded that expectation of pain was predictive of non-attendance. 5 Two recent, albeit small, studies suggest that pain experienced during first-round mammography screening is also a barrier to re-attendance in breast screening programmes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pain during mammography: Implications for breast screening programmes

Andrews

2001

Australasian Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pain experienced during mammography can deter women from attending for breast cancer screening. Review of the current literature on pain experienced during mammography reveals three main areas of interest: reports of the frequency of pain, identification of predictors of pain and strategies for responding to pain. Implications of this literature for breast screening programmes include the need for appropriate measurements of pain during mammography that are valid for screening populations, a further understanding of organizational factors involved in screening programmes that may be predictors of pain and for the development of valid strategies for responding to pain within breast screening programmes.

show abstract

“…Socio-economic position might be associated with opportunities to learn about and avoid the hazards of the risk factors examined here (Clark, 1995;Vernon et al, 1992;Jeffrey, 1991). Lower socio-economic position may be associated with a greater sense of inevitability and a lesser sense of`self-ef® cacy' (Strecher et al, 1986;Perez-Stable et al, 1992), attitudes that, in turn, may be associated with failure to adopt recommended preventive measures such as screening (Powe and Johnson, 1995;Straughan and Seow, 1995) and use of seatbelts (Helsing and Comstock, 1977;Colon, 1992). Lower socio-economic position may also be associated with less access to preventive opportunities.…”

Section: Explanations For Distributions Of Numbers Of Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health risk aversion, health risk affinity, and socio-economic position in the USA: The demographics of multiple risk

Hahn¹,

Vesely

Chang

2000

Health, Risk & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the distribution of behavioural risk factors in the population can improve health promotion. This article reports on a research project which analysed the distribution of numbers of behavioural risk factors among US adults, by race/Hispanic origin, sex, and age. Income, education, and region were examined as potential confounders in observed patterns.The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data for 1993 were used to assess the distribution of numbers of risk factors, i.e. smoking, heavy drinking, overweight, inadequate seatbelt use, Papanicolaou (pap) smear screening, mammography, colorectal screening, and in¯uenza and pneumonia vaccination. Two hypotheses were examined: (1) given the distribution of each risk factor in the US population by age and sex, prevalences both of low and of high numbers of risk behaviours (but not of moderate numbers of risk behaviours) are greater than expected within each race/Hispanic origin-sex-age group; and (2) differences in socio-economic position among these groups account for the differences between observed and expected prevalences of numbers of risk factors. The second hypothesis was assessed both graphically by adjustment for income and education, and by multiple linear regression. The research found higher than expected prevalences of both low and high numbers of risk factors among whites and, possibly, among Hispanics. Among Asians prevalences were less than expected with greater numbers of risk factors. Among blacks and American Indians prevalences were lower than expected for low numbers of risk factors and were greater than expected with greater numbers of risk factors. Adjustment for income or education reduced differences between observed and expected prevalences.It appears that risk aversion and risk af® nity vary substantially by race/Hispanic origin and are only partially explained by socio-economic position. Exploration of the causes of high and low risk behaviour may improve risk behaviour interventions.

show abstract

Barriers to mammography among Chinese women in Singapore: a focus group approach

Cited by 25 publications

References 0 publications

Chinese Breast Cancer Screening Beliefs Questionnaire: development and psychometric testing with Chinese‐Australian women

Chinese Breast Cancer Screening Beliefs Questionnaire: development and psychometric testing with Chinese‐Australian women

Pain during mammography: Implications for breast screening programmes

Health risk aversion, health risk affinity, and socio-economic position in the USA: The demographics of multiple risk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About