Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Staging mammography nonadherent women: A qualitative study

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background. Few studies have related stages of mammography screening nonadherence with the rationale used by overdue women. Methods. We used a grounded theory approach to obtain and analyze data from focus groups, telephone interviews, and surveys. Emergent specific themes were compared with emerging decision levels of nonadherence. Each decision level was then compared with the Precaution Adoption Process Model and the Transtheoretical Model. Results. A total of 6 key themes influencing mammogram nonadherence emerged as did 6 decision levels. Variability within themes was associated with specific decision levels. The decision levels were not adequately classified by either stage model. Conclusions. Stage-based educational strategies may benefit by tailoring interventions to these 6 decision levels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nystrom L, Rutquist LE, Wall S, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: an overview of Swedish randomized trials. Lancet. 1993;341:973–978.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jonsson H, Tornberg S, Nystrom L, Lenner P. Service screening with mammography of women aged 70–74 years in Sweden: effects on breast cancer mortality. Cancer Detect Prev. 2003;27:360–369.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Berry DA CK, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, et al. Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) collaborators: effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1784–1792.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. National prevalence data 2000. Available at: http://apps.nccd.cdc. gov/brfss/index.asp. Accessed February, 25, 2007.

  5. Costanza ME, Stoddard AM, Luckmann R, White MJ, Avrunin JS, Clemow L. Promoting mammography: results of a randomized trial of telephone counseling and a medical practice intervention. Am J Prev Med. 2000;19:39–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. US Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/01statab/pop.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2005.

  7. Wells BL, Horn JW. Targeting the underserved for breast and cervical cancer screening: the utility of ecological analysis using National Health Interview Survey. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1484–1489.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. MacKay AP, Fingerhut LA, Duran CR. Health United States, 2000. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hedegarrd HB, Davidson AJ, Wright RA. Factors associated with screening mammography in low-income women. Am J Prev Med. 1996;12:51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Zapka JG, Stoddard AM, Costanza ME, Greene HL. Breast cancer screening by mammography: utilization and associated factors. Am J Public Health. 1989;79:1499–1502.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zapka JG, Hosmer D, Costanza ME, Harris DR, Stoddard AM. Changes in mammographic use: economic, need and service factors. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:1345–1351.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rakowski W, Pealman D, Rimer B, Ehrich B. Correlates of mammography among women with low and high socioeconomic resources. Prev Med. 1995;24:149–158.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Johansson I BC. Getting no respect: barriers to mammography for a group of Swedish women. Health Care Women Int. 2003;24:8–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Champion V, Maraj M, Hui S, et al. Comparison of tailored interventions effectiveness in non-adherent older women. Prev Med. 2003;36:150–158.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lagerlund M, Sparen P, Thurfjell E, Ekbom A, Lambe M. Predictors of non-attendance in a population-based mammography screening. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2000;9:25–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rawl SM, Champion VL, Menon U, Foster JL. The impact of age and race on mammography practices. Health Care Women Int. 2000;21:583–597.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lipkus I, Rimer B, Strigo TS. Relationships among objective and subjective risk for breast cancer and mammography stages of change. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1996;5:1005–1011.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. McCaul KD, Branstetter AD, Schroeder DM, Glasgow RE. What is the relationship between breast cancer risk and mammography screening? a meta-analytic review. Health Psychol. 1996;15:423–429.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Champion V, Skinner CS. Differences in perceptions of risk, benefits, and barriers by stage of mammography adoption. J Womens Health. 2003;12:277–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Aro AR, deKonig HJ, Absetz P, Schreck M. Two distinct groups of non-attenders in an organized mammography screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;70:145–153.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Black MEA, Stein KF, Loveland-Cherry CJ. Older women and mammography screening behavior: do possible selves contribute? Health Educ Behav. 2001;28:200–216.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cole SR, Bryant CA. Beliefs and mammography screening. Am J Prev Med. 1997;13:439–443.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Diefenbach MA, Miller SM, Daly MB. Specific worry about breast cancer predicts mammography use in women at risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Health Psychol. 1999;18:532–536.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Burton MV, Warren R, Price D, Earl H. Psychological predictors of attendance at annual breast screening examinations. Br J Cancer. 1998;77:2014–2019.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Friedman LC, Woodruff A, Lane M, Weinberg AD, Cooper HP, Webb JA. Breast cancer screening behaviors and intention among asymptomatic women 50 year of age and older. Am J Prev Med. 1995;11:218–223.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rimer B, Trock BJ, Engstrom P, Lerman C, King E. Why do some women get regular mammograms? Am J Prev Med. 1991;7:69–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Swinker M, Arbogast JG, Murray S. Why do patients decline screening mammograms? Fam Pract Res J. 1993;13:165–170.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Crane L, Leakey TA, Rimer B, Wolfe P, Woodworth MA, Warnecke R. Effectiveness of a telephone outcall intervention to promote screening mammography in low-income women. Prev Med. 1998;27:S39-S49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Weinstein ND. The precaution adoption process. Health Psychol. 1988;7:355–386.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997;12:11–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mischel W. Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychol Rev. 1973;80:252–283.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Becker MH. The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health Educ Monogr. 1974;2:324–473.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Spencer L PF, Adams T. Applying the transtheoretical model to cancer screening behavior. Am J Health Behav. 2005;29:36–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rakowski W, Ehrich B, Golsetin M, et al. Increasing mammography among women aged 40–74 by use of a stage-matched, tailored intervention. Prev Med. 1998;27:748–756.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Stoddard AM, Fox SA, Costanza ME, et al. Effectiveness of telephone counseling for mammography: results from five randomized trials. Prev Med. 2002;34:90–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Brenes GA, Skinner C. Psychological factors related to stage of mammography adoption. J Womens Health 1999;9:1313–1321.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Clemow L, Costanza ME, Haddad WP, et al. Underutilizers of mammography screening today: characteristics of women planning, undecided about, and not planning a mammogram. Ann Behav Med. 2002;22:80–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Glaser BG. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs Forcing. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Strauss A, Corbin J. Grounded theory methodology. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994:273–285.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Costanza ME. The extent of breast cancer screening in older women. Cancer. 1994;74(suppl 7):2046–2050.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. NCI Breast Cancer Screening Consortium. Screening mammography: a missed clinical opportunity?: results of the NCI Breast Cancer Screening Consortium and National Health Interview studies. JAMA. 1990;264:54–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81:1879–1886.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24:385–396.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The Patient Health Question-naire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care. 2003;41:1284–1292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. La Pelle N. Simplifying qualitative data analysis using general purpose software tools. Field Methods. 2004;16:85–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bauman LJ. Collecting data by telephone interviewing. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1993;14:256–260.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. McCormick MC, Workman-Daniels K, Brooks-Gunn J, Peckman GJ. When you’re only a phone call away: a comparison of the information in telephone and face-to-face interviews. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1993;14:250–255.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Doing Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Miller WL, Crabtree BF. Clinical research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994:340–352.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Miles J, Huberman A. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Patton M. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Rubin J. Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design and Conduct Effective Tests. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Richards L, Morse JM. README First for a User’s Guide to Qualitative Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  56. McCaul KD, Schroder DM, Reid PA. Breast cancer worry and screening: some prospective data. Health Psychol. 1996;15:430–433.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Lewis ML, Corcoran-Perry SA, Narayan SM, Lally RM. Women’s approaches to decision-making about mammography. Cancer Nurs. 1999;22:380–388.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Vahabi M, Gastaldo D. Rational choice(s)?: rethinking decision-making about breast cancer and screening mammography. Nurs Inq. 2003;10:245–256.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Lauver DR, Henriques JB, Settersten L, Bumann MC. Psychosocial variables, external barriers, and stage of mammography adoption. Health Psychol. 2003;22:649–653.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Mary E. Costanza MD

    Present address: Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Avenue North, 01655, Worcester, MA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard School of Public Health, Boston

    Jennifer Rider Stark MpH

  2. Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Avenue North, 01655, Worcester, MA

    Nancy LaPelle PhD, Roger Luckmann MD, MpH, Milagros C. Rosal PhD & Mary Jo White MS, MpH

Authors
  1. Nancy LaPelle PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary E. Costanza MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roger Luckmann MD, MpH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Milagros C. Rosal PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mary Jo White MS, MpH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jennifer Rider Stark MpH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Supported by funding from National Institutes of Health Grant 5R21CA100286-02.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

LaPelle, N., Costanza, M.E., Luckmann, R. et al. Staging mammography nonadherent women: A qualitative study. J Canc Educ 23, 114–121 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1080/08858190802039094

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08858190802039094

Keywords

Search

Navigation