Abstract
Background: Cervical cancer (CC) is one of the treatable forms of cancer that can be prevented in its long precancerous conditions and good screening programs.
Aims: Using directed content analysis, the present study, as qualitative research, aimed to investigate married women’s perspectives on screening for CC based on the protection motivation theory (PMT).
Methods: To this end, a total number of 20 married women, considering maximum variation in sampling in terms of age and level of education, were interviewed. Therefore, an in-depth semistructured interview was used for data collection until saturation was reached. The PMT was also applied as the main framework to develop the interview items.
Results: Eight categories, namely, intention, fear, perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, response efficacy, self-efficacy, response cost, and social support, were identified based on data classification. The majority of the participants intended to have a Pap smear. Moreover, they believed that if women knew more about screening for cervical cancer, they would definitely do so. Most of the participants, 60 %, had a high level of perceived susceptibility, and 100 % of them had self-efficacy related to doing a Pap smear. Almost all the interviewees acknowledged the effectiveness of a Pap smear and its consequences, but 80 % of the participants reported that they could not follow regular tests due to response cost despite their self-efficacy and knowledge about the effectiveness and the benefits of this type of screening. All the study participants also put more emphasis on the role of social support to push them to get a Pap smear.
Conclusion: The cost of a Pap smear and social support should be considered when encouraging married women to participate in screening programs.
Keywords: Cervical cancer, protection motivation theory, pap smear test, screening, qualitative study, perspective.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30482-6] [PMID: 31812369]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30716] [PMID: 28369882]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2010.2062] [PMID: 21671779]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/bmdcn/2018080318] [PMID: 30141405]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3322/caac.20138] [PMID: 22237781]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0971-5851.92808] [PMID: 22557777]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-0218.62576]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13027-018-0178-5] [PMID: 29416557]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hsag.v19i1.787]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pon.1270] [PMID: 17886262]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/jcmhe.1000120]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01674820701504619] [PMID: 18266164]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/asm.2012.23006]
[PMID: 22126491]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckx112] [PMID: 29020396]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrpr.2018.01.001]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2013.06.005] [PMID: 23993479]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1609406918797475]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803] [PMID: 28136248]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687] [PMID: 16204405]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8] [PMID: 29937585]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2015.1050590]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.27.4.1052] [PMID: 18607041]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(83)90023-9]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pon.5307] [PMID: 31823462]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12905-019-0778-2]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.31386/dmj.2020.4.1.9]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2008.1227] [PMID: 19951218]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2016.17.S3.263] [PMID: 22911960]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2016.17.S3.263]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01428-9] [PMID: 34362366]
[PMID: 20843130]