ArticleBMC public health2020
Non-participation in mammographic screening - experiences of women from a region in Sweden.
Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screen-Detected Breast Cancer Outcomes by Mammography Participation in Immediate Past Screening.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- To facilitate realisation of access, participation, and equity in healthcare: an interview study with policy makers in a Swedish region.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Review
- Barriers to and facilitators of screening for cervical and breast cancer: Experiences of non-adherent women with current or previous drug use.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Screening for breast and cervical cancer among OST patients: a qualitative study of barriers and suggested interventions to increase participation.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2023Article
- Informed choices for some, but not for others: An exploration of Australian midlife women's participation in mammography screening by social class.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding women's life conditions regarding their non-participation in different health-promoting and disease-preventing activities is important as it may draw attention to potential areas for improvement in the healthcare sector. Mammographic screening, a disease-preventing service, facilitates early detection of any potential malignancies and consequently prompts initiation of treatment. The reasons for non-participation in mammographic screening can be understood from different perspectives, such as socioeconomic and lifestyle-related determinants of health. This study aims to gain a deeper understanding of women's experiences and perceptions about non-participation in mammographic screening in a Swedish region with a single mammographic facility.
methodsData from individual semi-structured interviews, conducted in 2018 with eleven women between the ages of 48 and 73, were analysed by a qualitative content analysis.
resultsThe findings reveal three main categories: 1) doubts regarding mammographic screening and its organisation, 2) sense and sensibility in the decision to refrain from mammographic screening, and 3) dependency and options. These three categories indicate aspects, such as the individual's life situation, accessibility to the offered service, and the flexibility of the healthcare system, that need to be considered to improve the organisation of mammographic screening.
conclusionListening to the women's voices regarding their experiences and perceptions about mammographic screening is important as individual characteristics and social circumstances interact with healthcare and affect the degree of participation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.