Gender differences in attitudes impeding colorectal cancer screening

Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) is the only type of cancer screening where both genders reduce risks by similar proportions with identical procedures. It is an important context for examining gender differences in disease-prevention, as CRCS significantly reduces mortality via early detection and...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMC public health 2013-05, Vol.13 (1), p.500-500, Article 500
Hauptverfasser: Ritvo, Paul, Myers, Ronald E, Paszat, Lawrence, Serenity, Mardie, Perez, Daniel F, Rabeneck, Linda
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 500
container_issue 1
container_start_page 500
container_title BMC public health
container_volume 13
creator Ritvo, Paul
Myers, Ronald E
Paszat, Lawrence
Serenity, Mardie
Perez, Daniel F
Rabeneck, Linda
description Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) is the only type of cancer screening where both genders reduce risks by similar proportions with identical procedures. It is an important context for examining gender differences in disease-prevention, as CRCS significantly reduces mortality via early detection and prevention. In efforts to increase screening adherence, there is increasing acknowledgment that obstructive attitudes prevent CRCS uptake. Precise identification of the gender differences in obstructive attitudes is necessary to improve uptake promotion. This study randomly sampled unscreened, screening - eligible individuals in Ontario, employing semi-structured interviews to elicit key differences in attitudinal obstructions towards colorectal cancer screening with the aim of deriving informative differences useful in planning promotions of screening uptake. N = 81 participants (49 females, 32 males), 50 years and above, with no prior CRCS, were contacted via random-digit telephone dialing, and consented via phone-mail contact. Altogether, N = 4,459 calls were made to yield N = 85 participants (1.9% response rate) of which N = 4 participants did not complete interviews. All subjects were eligible for free-of-charge CRCS in Ontario, and each was classified, via standard interview by CRCS screening decision-stage. Telephone-based, semi-structured interviews (SSIs) were employed to investigate gender differences in CRCS attitudes, using questions focused on 5 attitudinal domains: 1) Screening experience at the time of interview; 2) Barriers to adherence; 3) Predictors of Adherence; 4) Pain-anxiety experiences related to CRCS; 5) Gender-specific experiences re: CRCS, addressing all three modalities accessible through Ontario's program: a) fecal occult blood testing; b) flexible sigmoidoscopy; c) colonoscopy. Interview transcript analyses indicated divergent themes related to CRCS for each gender: 1) bodily intrusion, 2) perforation anxiety, and 3) embarrassment for females and; 1) avoidant procrastination with underlying fatalism, 2) unnecessary health care and 3) uncomfortable vulnerability for males. Respondents adopted similar attitudes towards fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, and were comparable in decision stage across tests. Gender differences were neither closely tied to screening stage nor modality. Women had more consistent physician relationships, were more screening-knowledgeable and better able to articulate views on
doi_str_mv 10.1186/1471-2458-13-500
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3672022</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A534624072</galeid><sourcerecordid>A534624072</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c557t-8a845844ffa1232c89106694fffe4ea44d718e889f9808ac968b0e413ab3eaf33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUk1LHTEUDdKi1nbvqgx0081ovifZCKKtFYRudB3yMjfPyEzyTGYK_fdmePZVS0GySO695xxOLgehY4JPCFHylPCOtJQL1RLWCoz30OGu9e7F-wB9KOUBY9IpQffRAWUdlpjqQ3R5BbGH3PTBe8gQHZQmxMZOU5jmfinGDfQhrhuXhpTBTXZonK243BSXAWKdfUTvvR0KfHq-j9Dd92-3Fz_am59X1xfnN60ToptaZVX1wrn3llBGndIES6lr7YGD5bzviAKltNcKK-u0VCsMnDC7YmA9Y0fobKu7mVcj9A7ilO1gNjmMNv82yQbzehLDvVmnX4bJjmJKq8DXZ4GcHmcokxlDcTAMNkKaiyGcV0eKd_htKKuSQotq722oFFpxKRYDX_6BPqQ5x7q0LYpiLdlf1NoOYEL0qf7GLaLmXDAuKcfdonXyH1Q9PYzBpQg-1P4rAt4SXE6lZPC7zRFsljyZJTBmCUx1Y2qeKuXzy43vCH8CxJ4ABnjC3w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1365920963</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Gender differences in attitudes impeding colorectal cancer screening</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><creator>Ritvo, Paul ; Myers, Ronald E ; Paszat, Lawrence ; Serenity, Mardie ; Perez, Daniel F ; Rabeneck, Linda</creator><creatorcontrib>Ritvo, Paul ; Myers, Ronald E ; Paszat, Lawrence ; Serenity, Mardie ; Perez, Daniel F ; Rabeneck, Linda</creatorcontrib><description>Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) is the only type of cancer screening where both genders reduce risks by similar proportions with identical procedures. It is an important context for examining gender differences in disease-prevention, as CRCS significantly reduces mortality via early detection and prevention. In efforts to increase screening adherence, there is increasing acknowledgment that obstructive attitudes prevent CRCS uptake. Precise identification of the gender differences in obstructive attitudes is necessary to improve uptake promotion. This study randomly sampled unscreened, screening - eligible individuals in Ontario, employing semi-structured interviews to elicit key differences in attitudinal obstructions towards colorectal cancer screening with the aim of deriving informative differences useful in planning promotions of screening uptake. N = 81 participants (49 females, 32 males), 50 years and above, with no prior CRCS, were contacted via random-digit telephone dialing, and consented via phone-mail contact. Altogether, N = 4,459 calls were made to yield N = 85 participants (1.9% response rate) of which N = 4 participants did not complete interviews. All subjects were eligible for free-of-charge CRCS in Ontario, and each was classified, via standard interview by CRCS screening decision-stage. Telephone-based, semi-structured interviews (SSIs) were employed to investigate gender differences in CRCS attitudes, using questions focused on 5 attitudinal domains: 1) Screening experience at the time of interview; 2) Barriers to adherence; 3) Predictors of Adherence; 4) Pain-anxiety experiences related to CRCS; 5) Gender-specific experiences re: CRCS, addressing all three modalities accessible through Ontario's program: a) fecal occult blood testing; b) flexible sigmoidoscopy; c) colonoscopy. Interview transcript analyses indicated divergent themes related to CRCS for each gender: 1) bodily intrusion, 2) perforation anxiety, and 3) embarrassment for females and; 1) avoidant procrastination with underlying fatalism, 2) unnecessary health care and 3) uncomfortable vulnerability for males. Respondents adopted similar attitudes towards fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, and were comparable in decision stage across tests. Gender differences were neither closely tied to screening stage nor modality. Women had more consistent physician relationships, were more screening-knowledgeable and better able to articulate views on screening. Men reported less consistent physician relationships, were less knowledgeable and kept decision-making processes vague and emotionally distanced (i.e. at 'arm's length'). Marked differences were observed in obstructive CRCS attitudes per gender. Females articulated reservations about CRCS-associated distress and males suppressed negative views while ambiguously procrastinating about the task of completing screening. Future interventions could seek to reduce CRCS-related stress (females) and address the need to overcome procrastination (males).</description><identifier>ISSN: 1471-2458</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-2458</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-500</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23706029</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Attitude to Health ; Attitudes ; Blood ; Cancer ; Colonoscopy ; Colorectal cancer ; Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Diagnosis ; Early Detection of Cancer ; Female ; Females ; Gender differences ; Health attitudes ; Health behavior ; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice ; Health promotion ; Health Services Accessibility ; Humans ; Interviews ; Interviews as Topic ; Male ; Males ; Mass Screening - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Medical examination ; Medical screening ; Middle Aged ; Mortality ; Ontario ; Population-based studies ; Prevention ; Sex differences (Psychology) ; Sex Factors ; Socioeconomic Factors</subject><ispartof>BMC public health, 2013-05, Vol.13 (1), p.500-500, Article 500</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2013 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>2013 Ritvo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Ritvo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013 Ritvo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c557t-8a845844ffa1232c89106694fffe4ea44d718e889f9808ac968b0e413ab3eaf33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c557t-8a845844ffa1232c89106694fffe4ea44d718e889f9808ac968b0e413ab3eaf33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3672022/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3672022/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23706029$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ritvo, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Myers, Ronald E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paszat, Lawrence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Serenity, Mardie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perez, Daniel F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rabeneck, Linda</creatorcontrib><title>Gender differences in attitudes impeding colorectal cancer screening</title><title>BMC public health</title><addtitle>BMC Public Health</addtitle><description>Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) is the only type of cancer screening where both genders reduce risks by similar proportions with identical procedures. It is an important context for examining gender differences in disease-prevention, as CRCS significantly reduces mortality via early detection and prevention. In efforts to increase screening adherence, there is increasing acknowledgment that obstructive attitudes prevent CRCS uptake. Precise identification of the gender differences in obstructive attitudes is necessary to improve uptake promotion. This study randomly sampled unscreened, screening - eligible individuals in Ontario, employing semi-structured interviews to elicit key differences in attitudinal obstructions towards colorectal cancer screening with the aim of deriving informative differences useful in planning promotions of screening uptake. N = 81 participants (49 females, 32 males), 50 years and above, with no prior CRCS, were contacted via random-digit telephone dialing, and consented via phone-mail contact. Altogether, N = 4,459 calls were made to yield N = 85 participants (1.9% response rate) of which N = 4 participants did not complete interviews. All subjects were eligible for free-of-charge CRCS in Ontario, and each was classified, via standard interview by CRCS screening decision-stage. Telephone-based, semi-structured interviews (SSIs) were employed to investigate gender differences in CRCS attitudes, using questions focused on 5 attitudinal domains: 1) Screening experience at the time of interview; 2) Barriers to adherence; 3) Predictors of Adherence; 4) Pain-anxiety experiences related to CRCS; 5) Gender-specific experiences re: CRCS, addressing all three modalities accessible through Ontario's program: a) fecal occult blood testing; b) flexible sigmoidoscopy; c) colonoscopy. Interview transcript analyses indicated divergent themes related to CRCS for each gender: 1) bodily intrusion, 2) perforation anxiety, and 3) embarrassment for females and; 1) avoidant procrastination with underlying fatalism, 2) unnecessary health care and 3) uncomfortable vulnerability for males. Respondents adopted similar attitudes towards fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, and were comparable in decision stage across tests. Gender differences were neither closely tied to screening stage nor modality. Women had more consistent physician relationships, were more screening-knowledgeable and better able to articulate views on screening. Men reported less consistent physician relationships, were less knowledgeable and kept decision-making processes vague and emotionally distanced (i.e. at 'arm's length'). Marked differences were observed in obstructive CRCS attitudes per gender. Females articulated reservations about CRCS-associated distress and males suppressed negative views while ambiguously procrastinating about the task of completing screening. Future interventions could seek to reduce CRCS-related stress (females) and address the need to overcome procrastination (males).</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Attitude to Health</subject><subject>Attitudes</subject><subject>Blood</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Colonoscopy</subject><subject>Colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Early Detection of Cancer</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Females</subject><subject>Gender differences</subject><subject>Health attitudes</subject><subject>Health behavior</subject><subject>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</subject><subject>Health promotion</subject><subject>Health Services Accessibility</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Interviews as Topic</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Males</subject><subject>Mass Screening - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Medical examination</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Ontario</subject><subject>Population-based studies</subject><subject>Prevention</subject><subject>Sex differences (Psychology)</subject><subject>Sex Factors</subject><subject>Socioeconomic Factors</subject><issn>1471-2458</issn><issn>1471-2458</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUk1LHTEUDdKi1nbvqgx0081ovifZCKKtFYRudB3yMjfPyEzyTGYK_fdmePZVS0GySO695xxOLgehY4JPCFHylPCOtJQL1RLWCoz30OGu9e7F-wB9KOUBY9IpQffRAWUdlpjqQ3R5BbGH3PTBe8gQHZQmxMZOU5jmfinGDfQhrhuXhpTBTXZonK243BSXAWKdfUTvvR0KfHq-j9Dd92-3Fz_am59X1xfnN60ToptaZVX1wrn3llBGndIES6lr7YGD5bzviAKltNcKK-u0VCsMnDC7YmA9Y0fobKu7mVcj9A7ilO1gNjmMNv82yQbzehLDvVmnX4bJjmJKq8DXZ4GcHmcokxlDcTAMNkKaiyGcV0eKd_htKKuSQotq722oFFpxKRYDX_6BPqQ5x7q0LYpiLdlf1NoOYEL0qf7GLaLmXDAuKcfdonXyH1Q9PYzBpQg-1P4rAt4SXE6lZPC7zRFsljyZJTBmCUx1Y2qeKuXzy43vCH8CxJ4ABnjC3w</recordid><startdate>20130524</startdate><enddate>20130524</enddate><creator>Ritvo, Paul</creator><creator>Myers, Ronald E</creator><creator>Paszat, Lawrence</creator><creator>Serenity, Mardie</creator><creator>Perez, Daniel F</creator><creator>Rabeneck, Linda</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130524</creationdate><title>Gender differences in attitudes impeding colorectal cancer screening</title><author>Ritvo, Paul ; Myers, Ronald E ; Paszat, Lawrence ; Serenity, Mardie ; Perez, Daniel F ; Rabeneck, Linda</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c557t-8a845844ffa1232c89106694fffe4ea44d718e889f9808ac968b0e413ab3eaf33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Attitude to Health</topic><topic>Attitudes</topic><topic>Blood</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Colonoscopy</topic><topic>Colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Early Detection of Cancer</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Females</topic><topic>Gender differences</topic><topic>Health attitudes</topic><topic>Health behavior</topic><topic>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</topic><topic>Health promotion</topic><topic>Health Services Accessibility</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Interviews as Topic</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Males</topic><topic>Mass Screening - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Medical examination</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Ontario</topic><topic>Population-based studies</topic><topic>Prevention</topic><topic>Sex differences (Psychology)</topic><topic>Sex Factors</topic><topic>Socioeconomic Factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ritvo, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Myers, Ronald E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paszat, Lawrence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Serenity, Mardie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perez, Daniel F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rabeneck, Linda</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMC public health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ritvo, Paul</au><au>Myers, Ronald E</au><au>Paszat, Lawrence</au><au>Serenity, Mardie</au><au>Perez, Daniel F</au><au>Rabeneck, Linda</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Gender differences in attitudes impeding colorectal cancer screening</atitle><jtitle>BMC public health</jtitle><addtitle>BMC Public Health</addtitle><date>2013-05-24</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>500</spage><epage>500</epage><pages>500-500</pages><artnum>500</artnum><issn>1471-2458</issn><eissn>1471-2458</eissn><abstract>Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) is the only type of cancer screening where both genders reduce risks by similar proportions with identical procedures. It is an important context for examining gender differences in disease-prevention, as CRCS significantly reduces mortality via early detection and prevention. In efforts to increase screening adherence, there is increasing acknowledgment that obstructive attitudes prevent CRCS uptake. Precise identification of the gender differences in obstructive attitudes is necessary to improve uptake promotion. This study randomly sampled unscreened, screening - eligible individuals in Ontario, employing semi-structured interviews to elicit key differences in attitudinal obstructions towards colorectal cancer screening with the aim of deriving informative differences useful in planning promotions of screening uptake. N = 81 participants (49 females, 32 males), 50 years and above, with no prior CRCS, were contacted via random-digit telephone dialing, and consented via phone-mail contact. Altogether, N = 4,459 calls were made to yield N = 85 participants (1.9% response rate) of which N = 4 participants did not complete interviews. All subjects were eligible for free-of-charge CRCS in Ontario, and each was classified, via standard interview by CRCS screening decision-stage. Telephone-based, semi-structured interviews (SSIs) were employed to investigate gender differences in CRCS attitudes, using questions focused on 5 attitudinal domains: 1) Screening experience at the time of interview; 2) Barriers to adherence; 3) Predictors of Adherence; 4) Pain-anxiety experiences related to CRCS; 5) Gender-specific experiences re: CRCS, addressing all three modalities accessible through Ontario's program: a) fecal occult blood testing; b) flexible sigmoidoscopy; c) colonoscopy. Interview transcript analyses indicated divergent themes related to CRCS for each gender: 1) bodily intrusion, 2) perforation anxiety, and 3) embarrassment for females and; 1) avoidant procrastination with underlying fatalism, 2) unnecessary health care and 3) uncomfortable vulnerability for males. Respondents adopted similar attitudes towards fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, and were comparable in decision stage across tests. Gender differences were neither closely tied to screening stage nor modality. Women had more consistent physician relationships, were more screening-knowledgeable and better able to articulate views on screening. Men reported less consistent physician relationships, were less knowledgeable and kept decision-making processes vague and emotionally distanced (i.e. at 'arm's length'). Marked differences were observed in obstructive CRCS attitudes per gender. Females articulated reservations about CRCS-associated distress and males suppressed negative views while ambiguously procrastinating about the task of completing screening. Future interventions could seek to reduce CRCS-related stress (females) and address the need to overcome procrastination (males).</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>23706029</pmid><doi>10.1186/1471-2458-13-500</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1471-2458
ispartof BMC public health, 2013-05, Vol.13 (1), p.500-500, Article 500
issn 1471-2458
1471-2458
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3672022
source MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Springer Nature OA Free Journals
subjects Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Attitude to Health
Attitudes
Blood
Cancer
Colonoscopy
Colorectal cancer
Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis
Diagnosis
Early Detection of Cancer
Female
Females
Gender differences
Health attitudes
Health behavior
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Health promotion
Health Services Accessibility
Humans
Interviews
Interviews as Topic
Male
Males
Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data
Medical examination
Medical screening
Middle Aged
Mortality
Ontario
Population-based studies
Prevention
Sex differences (Psychology)
Sex Factors
Socioeconomic Factors
title Gender differences in attitudes impeding colorectal cancer screening
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T12%3A37%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Gender%20differences%20in%20attitudes%20impeding%20colorectal%20cancer%20screening&rft.jtitle=BMC%20public%20health&rft.au=Ritvo,%20Paul&rft.date=2013-05-24&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=500&rft.epage=500&rft.pages=500-500&rft.artnum=500&rft.issn=1471-2458&rft.eissn=1471-2458&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/1471-2458-13-500&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA534624072%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1365920963&rft_id=info:pmid/23706029&rft_galeid=A534624072&rfr_iscdi=true