SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Ferlay F, Bray F, Pisani O, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2002: Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide. IARC Press: Lyon, 2004.
  • 2
    Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF. The diagnostic value of vaginal smears in carcinoma of the uterus. (Originally published in American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1941;42:193–206). Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121:211224.
  • 3
    Dillner J. Cervical cancer in Sweden. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:22552259.
  • 4
    Anttila A, Ronco G, Clifford G, Bray F, Arbyn M, Weiderpass E. Cervical cancer screening programmes and policies in 18 European countries. Br J Cancer 2004;91:935941.
  • 5
    National Board of Health and Welfare. Gynaecological smear control. Proposition to a screening programme 1998 (Socialstyrelsen, Gynekologisk cellprovskontroll. Förslag till screeningprogram 1998) SoS-report 1998:15, 1998, in Swedish.
  • 6
    Rodvall Y, Kemetli L, Tishelman C, Törnberg S. Factors related to participation in a cervical cancer screening programme in urban Sweden. Eur J Cancer Prev 2005;14(5):459466.
  • 7
    Coleman D, Day N, Douglas G et al. European guidelines for qualitative assurance in cervical cancer screening. Europe against cancer programme. Eur J Cancer 1993;29A(Suppl. 4):S1S38.
  • 8
    Sung H-Y, Kearney KA, Miller M, Kinney W, Sawaya GF, Hiatt RA. Papanicolaou smear history and diagnosis of invasive cervical carcinoma among members of a large prepaid health plan. Cancer 2000;88(10):22832289.
  • 9
    Bos AB, Rebolj M, Habbema JD, Ballegooijen M. Nonattendance is still the main limitation for the effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer in Netherlands. Int J Cancer 2006;119:23722375.
  • 10
    Maxwell CJ, Bancej CM, Snider J, Vik SA. Factors important in promoting cervical cancer screening among Canadian women: findings from the 1996–97 National Population Health Survey (NPHS). Can J Public Health 2001;92(2):127133.
  • 11
    Lockwood-Rayermann S. Characteristics of participation in cervical cancer screening. Cancer Nursing 2004;27(5):353363.
  • 12
    Arbyn M, Quataert P, Van Hal G, Van Oyen H. Cervical cancer screening in the Flemish region (Belgium): measurement of the attendance rate by telephone interview. Eur J Cancer Prev 1997;6:389398.
  • 13
    Jennings-Dozier K, Lawrence D. Sociodemographic predictors of adherence to annual cervical cancer screening in minority women. Cancer Nurs 2000;23(5):350356.
  • 14
    Eaker S, Adami H-O, Sparén P. Reasons women do not attend screening for cervical cancer: a population-based study in Sweden. Prev Med 2001;32:482491.
  • 15
    Hesselius I, Lisper H-O, Nordström A, Anshelm-Olson B, Ödlund B. Comparison between participants and non-participants at a gynaecological mass screening. Scand J Soc Med 1975;3:129138.
  • 16
    Ideström M, Milsom I, Andersson-Ellström A. Knowledge and attitudes about the Pap-smear screening program: a population-based study of women aged 20–59 years. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002;81:962967.
  • 17
    Forss A, Tishelman C, Widmark C, Lundgren E-L, Sachs L, Törnberg S. ‘I got a letter…’ A qualitative study of women's reasoning about attendance in a cervical cancer screening program in urban Sweden. Psycho-Oncology 2001;10:7687.
  • 18
    Fitch MI, Greenberg M, Cava M, Spaner D, Taylor K. Exploring the barriers to cervical screening in an urban Canadian setting. Cancer Nurs 1998;21(6):441449.
  • 19
    Holroyd E, Twinn SF, Shia ATY. Chinese women's experiences and images of the Pap smear examination. Cancer Nurs 2001;24(1):6875.
  • 20
    Markovic M, Kesic V, Tpoic L, Matejic B. Barriers to cervical cancer screening: a qualitative study with women in Serbia. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:25282535.
  • 21
    Miok LC. Knowledge, barriers, and motivators related to cervical cancer screening among Korean-American women: a focus group approach. Cancer Nurs 2000;23(3):168175.
  • 22
    Nicky Thomas V, Saleem T, Abraham R. Barriers to effective uptake of cancer screening among black and minority ethnic groups. Int J Palliat Nurs 2005;11(11):562571.
  • 23
    Tishelman C, Forss A, Sachs L, Lundgren E-L, Widmark C, Törnberg S. Research on risk and risk in research: theoretical and practical experiences from a multidisciplinary study on cervical cancer screening. Qual Health Res 1999;9(1):4560.
  • 24
    Shuy R. In-person versus telephone interviewing. In Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method, GubriumJF, HolsteinJA (eds). Sage: London, 2002;537555.
  • 25
    Thorne S, Reimer Kirkham S, MacDonald-Emes J. Interpretative description: a noncategorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Res Nurs Health 1997;20:169177.
  • 26
    Thorne S, Reimer Kirkham S, MacDonald-Emes J, O'Flynn-Magee K. The analytic challenge in interpretive description. Int J Qual Methods 2004;3(1):121. Retrieved December 12th 2004 from www.ualberta.ca/∼iiqm/backissues/2003_2001/pdf/thorneetal.pdf
  • 27
    Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications: London, 1985.
  • 28
    Richards L. Handling Qualitative Data. Sage Publications: London, 2005.
  • 29
    Hirschman A. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Harvard University Press: London, 1970.
  • 30
    Symonds RP. Screening for cervical cancer: different problems in the developing and the developed world. Eur J Cancer Care 1997;6:275279.
  • 31
    Burnard P. The telephone interview as a data collection method. Nurse Educ Today 1994;14:6772.
  • 32
    Musselwhite K, Cuff L, McGregor L, King KM. The telephone interview is an effective method of data collection in clinical nursing research: a discussion paper. Int J Nurs Stud 2007;44:10641070.
  • 33
    Hilden M, Sidenius K, Langhoff-Roos J, Wijma B, Schei B. Women's experiences of the gynecologic examination: factors associated with discomfort. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003;82:10301036.
  • 34
    Wendt E, Fridlund B, Lidell E. Trust and confirmation in a gynecologic examination situation: a critical incident technique analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004;83:12081215.
  • 35
    Orbell S. Cognition and affect after cervical screening: the role of previous test outcome and personal obligation in future uptake expectations. Soc Sci Med 1996;43(8):12371243.
  • 36
    Widmark C, Tishelman C, Lundgren E-L, Forss A, Sachs L, Törnberg S. Opportunities and burdens for nurse–midwives working in primary health care. J Nurse Midwifery 1998;43(6):530540.
  • 37
    Bush J. It's just a part of being woman: cervical screening, the body and feminity. Soc Sci Med 2000;50(3):429444.
  • 38
    Mckie L. The art of surveillance or reasonable prevention—the case of cervical screening. Sociol Health Illn 1995;17(4):441457.
  • 39
    Jepson RG, Hewison J, Thompson AGH, Weller D. How should we measure informed choice? The case of cancer screening. J Med Ethics 2005;31:192196.
  • 40
    Nikku N. Informative paternalism: studies in the ethics of promoting and predicting health. Linköping Studies in art and science. Published Doctoral Dissertation, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
  • 41
    Törnberg SA. Screening for early detection of cancer. Ethical aspects. Acta Oncol 1999;38:7781.
  • 42
    Widmark C, Lagerlund M, Maina Ahlberg B, Tishelman C (accepted pending minor revisions). Cancer screening in the context of women's health: perceptions of body and self among women of different ages in urban Sweden. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being