Kristin Allergodt

Women's experiences with opting out of cervical cancer screening and the role of the nurse in the women's decision‐making process

AbstractAimTo explore Danish women's experiences with opting out of cervical cancer screening and the role of the nurse in the women's decision‐making process.DesignA qualitative study using semi‐structured, individual interviews with a phenomenological‐hermeneutic approach.MethodsInterviews were conducted with 13 women with experience in opting out of cervical cancer screening. Women were recruited through a public flyer and interviewed virtually or by phone. The interviews were analysed using the theory of interpretation from Paul Ricoeur and consisted of three levels: naïve reading, structural analysis, and critical discussion and analysis. The present study adheres to the COREQ guidelines.ResultsThe women experience various personal causes for opting out of cervical cancer screening, such as low accessibility of screening appointments, discomfort during the smear test, fear of being sick, and insufficient information about the relevance of screening to the individual woman. The perceived disadvantages of screening outweighed their perceived advantages. The women's experiences did not include the role of the nurse in the procedures and knowledge sharing related to cervical cancer screening. However, nurses were described as having good communicative and relational qualifications relevant to being involved in cervical cancer screening.ConclusionIt was challenging for the women to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of cervical cancer screening and thus to make an informed decision about participation. They expressed a need for more information on which to base their decision. This places nurses in a much needed, yet unexplored, role of identifying and lowering potential personal barriers that may outweigh the women's perceived benefits of participating in screening.Implication for the profession and/or patient careNurses should play a more active role in cervical cancer screening such as improving general knowledge and facilitating two‐way communication about its relevance.Reporting MethodThe present study adheres to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guidelines.Patient or Public ContributionNo patient or public contribution.