Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer

IntroductionParticipation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a ‘One Stop’ screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.MethodsParticipants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed ‘One Stop’ cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.Results1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1 years ± 15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2–59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48–53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2–33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21–0.66), p < 0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46–3.00), p < 0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22–2.51), p < 0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3–39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07–0.74), p < 0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2–24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9–9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5–7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9–88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location.ConclusionIdentified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Amanda Bobridge [verfasserIn] Kay Price [verfasserIn] Tiffany K. Gill [verfasserIn] Anne W. Taylor [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2017

Schlagwörter:	cancer screening combined screening screening behaviors combined cancer screening screening participation

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Frontiers in Oncology - Frontiers Media S.A., 2012, 7(2017)
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:7 ; year:2017

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.3389/fonc.2017.00308

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ018946577

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ018946577
003	DE-627
005	20230307033833.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230226s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.3389/fonc.2017.00308 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ018946577
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RC254-282
100	0		\|a Amanda Bobridge \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer
264		1	\|c 2017
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a IntroductionParticipation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a ‘One Stop’ screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.MethodsParticipants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed ‘One Stop’ cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.Results1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1 years ± 15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2–59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48–53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2–33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21–0.66), p < 0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46–3.00), p < 0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22–2.51), p < 0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3–39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07–0.74), p < 0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2–24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9–9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5–7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9–88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location.ConclusionIdentified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation.
650		4	\|a cancer screening
650		4	\|a combined screening
650		4	\|a screening behaviors
650		4	\|a combined cancer screening
650		4	\|a screening participation
653		0	\|a Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
700	0		\|a Kay Price \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Tiffany K. Gill \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Anne W. Taylor \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Frontiers in Oncology \|d Frontiers Media S.A., 2012 \|g 7(2017) \|w (DE-627)684965518 \|w (DE-600)2649216-7 \|x 2234943X \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:7 \|g year:2017
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308/full \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2234-943X \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 7 \|j 2017

Indexfelder

author_variant	a b ab k p kp t k g tkg a w t awt
matchkey_str	article:2234943X:2017----::nlecncnesreigatcptortsrvdnaobndacrcennpormo
hierarchy_sort_str	2017
callnumber-subject-code	RC
publishDate	2017
allfields	10.3389/fonc.2017.00308 doi (DE-627)DOAJ018946577 (DE-599)DOAJ1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC254-282 Amanda Bobridge verfasserin aut Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier IntroductionParticipation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a ‘One Stop’ screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.MethodsParticipants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed ‘One Stop’ cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.Results1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1 years ± 15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2–59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48–53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2–33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21–0.66), p < 0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46–3.00), p < 0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22–2.51), p < 0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3–39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07–0.74), p < 0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2–24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9–9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5–7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9–88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location.ConclusionIdentified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation. cancer screening combined screening screening behaviors combined cancer screening screening participation Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens Kay Price verfasserin aut Tiffany K. Gill verfasserin aut Anne W. Taylor verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Oncology Frontiers Media S.A., 2012 7(2017) (DE-627)684965518 (DE-600)2649216-7 2234943X nnns volume:7 year:2017 https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287 kostenfrei http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2234-943X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2017
spelling	10.3389/fonc.2017.00308 doi (DE-627)DOAJ018946577 (DE-599)DOAJ1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC254-282 Amanda Bobridge verfasserin aut Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier IntroductionParticipation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a ‘One Stop’ screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.MethodsParticipants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed ‘One Stop’ cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.Results1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1 years ± 15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2–59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48–53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2–33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21–0.66), p < 0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46–3.00), p < 0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22–2.51), p < 0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3–39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07–0.74), p < 0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2–24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9–9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5–7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9–88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location.ConclusionIdentified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation. cancer screening combined screening screening behaviors combined cancer screening screening participation Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens Kay Price verfasserin aut Tiffany K. Gill verfasserin aut Anne W. Taylor verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Oncology Frontiers Media S.A., 2012 7(2017) (DE-627)684965518 (DE-600)2649216-7 2234943X nnns volume:7 year:2017 https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287 kostenfrei http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2234-943X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2017
allfields_unstemmed	10.3389/fonc.2017.00308 doi (DE-627)DOAJ018946577 (DE-599)DOAJ1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC254-282 Amanda Bobridge verfasserin aut Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier IntroductionParticipation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a ‘One Stop’ screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.MethodsParticipants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed ‘One Stop’ cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.Results1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1 years ± 15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2–59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48–53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2–33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21–0.66), p < 0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46–3.00), p < 0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22–2.51), p < 0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3–39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07–0.74), p < 0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2–24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9–9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5–7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9–88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location.ConclusionIdentified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation. cancer screening combined screening screening behaviors combined cancer screening screening participation Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens Kay Price verfasserin aut Tiffany K. Gill verfasserin aut Anne W. Taylor verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Oncology Frontiers Media S.A., 2012 7(2017) (DE-627)684965518 (DE-600)2649216-7 2234943X nnns volume:7 year:2017 https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287 kostenfrei http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2234-943X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2017
allfieldsGer	10.3389/fonc.2017.00308 doi (DE-627)DOAJ018946577 (DE-599)DOAJ1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC254-282 Amanda Bobridge verfasserin aut Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier IntroductionParticipation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a ‘One Stop’ screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.MethodsParticipants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed ‘One Stop’ cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.Results1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1 years ± 15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2–59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48–53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2–33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21–0.66), p < 0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46–3.00), p < 0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22–2.51), p < 0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3–39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07–0.74), p < 0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2–24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9–9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5–7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9–88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location.ConclusionIdentified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation. cancer screening combined screening screening behaviors combined cancer screening screening participation Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens Kay Price verfasserin aut Tiffany K. Gill verfasserin aut Anne W. Taylor verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Oncology Frontiers Media S.A., 2012 7(2017) (DE-627)684965518 (DE-600)2649216-7 2234943X nnns volume:7 year:2017 https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287 kostenfrei http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2234-943X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2017
allfieldsSound	10.3389/fonc.2017.00308 doi (DE-627)DOAJ018946577 (DE-599)DOAJ1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC254-282 Amanda Bobridge verfasserin aut Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier IntroductionParticipation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a ‘One Stop’ screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.MethodsParticipants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed ‘One Stop’ cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.Results1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1 years ± 15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2–59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48–53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2–33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21–0.66), p < 0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46–3.00), p < 0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22–2.51), p < 0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3–39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07–0.74), p < 0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2–24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9–9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5–7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9–88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location.ConclusionIdentified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation. cancer screening combined screening screening behaviors combined cancer screening screening participation Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens Kay Price verfasserin aut Tiffany K. Gill verfasserin aut Anne W. Taylor verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Oncology Frontiers Media S.A., 2012 7(2017) (DE-627)684965518 (DE-600)2649216-7 2234943X nnns volume:7 year:2017 https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287 kostenfrei http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2234-943X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2017
language	English
source	In Frontiers in Oncology 7(2017) volume:7 year:2017
sourceStr	In Frontiers in Oncology 7(2017) volume:7 year:2017
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	cancer screening combined screening screening behaviors combined cancer screening screening participation Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Frontiers in Oncology
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Amanda Bobridge @@aut@@ Kay Price @@aut@@ Tiffany K. Gill @@aut@@ Anne W. Taylor @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2017-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	684965518
id	DOAJ018946577
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ018946577</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307033833.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3389/fonc.2017.00308</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ018946577</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC254-282</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Amanda Bobridge</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">IntroductionParticipation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a ‘One Stop’ screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.MethodsParticipants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed ‘One Stop’ cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.Results1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1 years ± 15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2–59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48–53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2–33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21–0.66), p &lt; 0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46–3.00), p &lt; 0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22–2.51), p &lt; 0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3–39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07–0.74), p &lt; 0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2–24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9–9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5–7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9–88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location.ConclusionIdentified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">cancer screening</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">combined screening</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">screening behaviors</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">combined cancer screening</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">screening participation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kay Price</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tiffany K. Gill</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Anne W. Taylor</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Frontiers in Oncology</subfield><subfield code="d">Frontiers Media S.A., 2012</subfield><subfield code="g">7(2017)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)684965518</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2649216-7</subfield><subfield code="x">2234943X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:7</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308/full</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2234-943X</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">7</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Amanda Bobridge
spellingShingle	Amanda Bobridge misc RC254-282 misc cancer screening misc combined screening misc screening behaviors misc combined cancer screening misc screening participation misc Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer
authorStr	Amanda Bobridge
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)684965518
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RC254-282
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	2234943X
topic_title	RC254-282 Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer cancer screening combined screening screening behaviors combined cancer screening screening participation
topic	misc RC254-282 misc cancer screening misc combined screening misc screening behaviors misc combined cancer screening misc screening participation misc Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
topic_unstemmed	misc RC254-282 misc cancer screening misc combined screening misc screening behaviors misc combined cancer screening misc screening participation misc Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
topic_browse	misc RC254-282 misc cancer screening misc combined screening misc screening behaviors misc combined cancer screening misc screening participation misc Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Frontiers in Oncology
hierarchy_parent_id	684965518
hierarchy_top_title	Frontiers in Oncology
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)684965518 (DE-600)2649216-7
title	Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ018946577 (DE-599)DOAJ1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287
title_full	Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer
author_sort	Amanda Bobridge
journal	Frontiers in Oncology
journalStr	Frontiers in Oncology
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2017
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Amanda Bobridge Kay Price Tiffany K. Gill Anne W. Taylor
container_volume	7
class	RC254-282
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Amanda Bobridge
doi_str_mv	10.3389/fonc.2017.00308
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	influencing cancer screening participation rates—providing a combined cancer screening program (a ‘one stop’ shop) could be a potential answer
callnumber	RC254-282
title_auth	Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer
abstract	IntroductionParticipation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a ‘One Stop’ screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.MethodsParticipants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed ‘One Stop’ cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.Results1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1 years ± 15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2–59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48–53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2–33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21–0.66), p < 0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46–3.00), p < 0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22–2.51), p < 0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3–39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07–0.74), p < 0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2–24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9–9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5–7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9–88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location.ConclusionIdentified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation.
abstractGer	IntroductionParticipation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a ‘One Stop’ screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.MethodsParticipants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed ‘One Stop’ cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.Results1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1 years ± 15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2–59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48–53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2–33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21–0.66), p < 0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46–3.00), p < 0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22–2.51), p < 0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3–39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07–0.74), p < 0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2–24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9–9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5–7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9–88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location.ConclusionIdentified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation.
abstract_unstemmed	IntroductionParticipation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a ‘One Stop’ screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.MethodsParticipants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed ‘One Stop’ cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.Results1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1 years ± 15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2–59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48–53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2–33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21–0.66), p < 0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46–3.00), p < 0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22–2.51), p < 0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3–39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07–0.74), p < 0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2–24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9–9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5–7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9–88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location.ConclusionIdentified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
title_short	Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer
url	https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308 https://doaj.org/article/1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287 http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308/full https://doaj.org/toc/2234-943X
remote_bool	true
author2	Kay Price Tiffany K. Gill Anne W. Taylor
author2Str	Kay Price Tiffany K. Gill Anne W. Taylor
ppnlink	684965518
callnumber-subject	RC - Internal Medicine
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.3389/fonc.2017.00308
callnumber-a	RC254-282
up_date	2024-07-03T20:55:46.635Z
_version_	1803592816800038912
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ018946577</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307033833.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3389/fonc.2017.00308</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ018946577</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC254-282</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Amanda Bobridge</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">IntroductionParticipation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a ‘One Stop’ screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.MethodsParticipants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed ‘One Stop’ cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.Results1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1 years ± 15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2–59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48–53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2–33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21–0.66), p &lt; 0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46–3.00), p &lt; 0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22–2.51), p &lt; 0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3–39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07–0.74), p &lt; 0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2–24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9–9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5–7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9–88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location.ConclusionIdentified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">cancer screening</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">combined screening</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">screening behaviors</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">combined cancer screening</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">screening participation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kay Price</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tiffany K. Gill</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Anne W. Taylor</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Frontiers in Oncology</subfield><subfield code="d">Frontiers Media S.A., 2012</subfield><subfield code="g">7(2017)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)684965518</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2649216-7</subfield><subfield code="x">2234943X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:7</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308/full</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2234-943X</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">7</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4024982

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?