↓ Skip to main content

Preconceptions influence women’s perceptions of information on breast cancer screening: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Preconceptions influence women’s perceptions of information on breast cancer screening: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Research Notes, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1327-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mikael Johannes Vuokko Henriksen, Ann Dorrit Guassora, John Brodersen

Abstract

Screening for breast cancer has been subject to intense debate in recent decades regarding benefits and risks. Participation in breast cancer screening should be based on informed choice, and most countries approach this by sending information leaflets with invitations to attend screening. However, very little attention has been paid to the decision-making process and how the information leaflets are used and understood by women. The aim of this study is twofold. First, we use a theoretical framework to explore how the framing of information influences the intention to participate in breast cancer screening. Second, we discuss how information and attitudes held prior to receiving the invitation influence the perception of the balance between the benefits and risks harms of screening. We used a qualitative design and interviewed six women who were soon to receive their first invitation to participate in the breast screening programme in Denmark. The selected women received a copy of the official information leaflet 1 week before we interviewed them. The six women were interviewed individually using an interview guide based on the theory of planned behaviour. We used meaning condensation for our initial analysis, and further analysis was guided by the theory of cognitive dissonance. For our participants, the decision-making process was dominated by the attitudes of the women's circle of acquaintances and, to a lesser extent, by the information that accompanied the screening invitation. Information that conflicted with attitudes the women already held was actively disregarded. The risk of overdiagnosis as a potentially harmful effect of participation in mammography screening was unknown to the women in our study. An isolated framing effect was not found. Women have expectations about breast cancer screening that are formed before they receive information from the screening programme. These expectations compromise the perception of balance between screening benefits and potential harmful effects. They also influence the perception of the information in the breast screening leaflet. The phenomenon of overdiagnosis is unknown to the women.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Czechia 1 1%
Unknown 78 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 23 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 16%
Psychology 10 13%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 23 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 October 2015.
All research outputs
#17,775,656
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#2,828
of 4,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,049
of 266,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#103
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,938 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.