Search

Aim of the study: This study aimed at integrating research discussing the role of perceived psychosocial barriers in cervical cancer screening (CCS) uptake. In particular, we analyzed the evidence for the associations between CCS uptake and perceived psychosocial barriers and frequency of psychosocial barriers identified by women. Material and methods: A systematic search of peer-reviewed papers published until 2011 in 8 databases yielded 48 original studies, analyzing data obtained from 155 954 women. The majority of studies (k = 43) applied correlational design, while 5 had experimental design. Results: Experimental research indicated a positive effect of 75% of psychosocial interventions targeting barriers. The interventions resulted in a significant increase of CCS uptake. Overall 100% of correlational studies indicated that perceiving lower levels of barriers significantly predicted higher CCS uptake. 53 psychosocial barriers were listed in at least 2 original correlational studies: 9.5% of barriers were related to CCS facilities/environment, 67.9% dealt with personal characteristics of the patient, and 22.6% addressed social factors. As many as 35.9% of perceived barriers referred to negative emotions related to CCS examination procedures and collecting CCS results, whereas 25.7% of barriers referred to prior contacts with health professionals. Conclusions: Leaflets or discussion on psychosocial barriers between patients and health professionals involved in CCS might increase CCS uptake and thus reduce cervical cancer mortality rates. Communication skills training for health professionals conducting CCS might focus on the most frequently reported barriers, referring to emotions related to CCS examination and collecting CCS results.

Plans Not Needed if You Have High and Stable Self-Efficacy: Planning Intervention and Snack Intake in the Context of Self-Efficacy Trajectories Forming action plans is expected to move people from intention to action. We hypothesized that the effects of planning interventions may depend on changes in self-efficacy beliefs. Participants (182 nurses and midwifes, 89% women, aged 19-50) were assigned to the control or the planning intervention (three planning sessions) groups and reported their self-efficacy, sweet and salty snack intake at the baseline and four months later. The results suggest that an increase of efficacy beliefs over time augmented the effects of the planning intervention and resulted in the lowest snack intake (the enhancing effect of self-efficacy). Planning intervention also prompted lower unhealthy snacking if efficacy beliefs were decreasing (the protective effect of planning). Those who have stable-high self-efficacy were able to achieve low snack intake regardless of the group assignment (the buffering effect of self-efficacy).