Exploring the sources of cervical cancer screening self‐efficacy among rural females: A qualitative study.

Aim: Evidence showed self‐efficacy was relevant to rural females' cervical cancer screening behaviour. However, little is known about sources of self‐efficacy in cervical cancer screening among rural females. This study aimed to explore sources of self‐efficacy in cervical cancer screening among rural females. Design: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted. Both users and providers of cervical cancer screening services in rural areas of China were recruited through maximum variation sampling. Methods: Individual semi‐structured interviews through telephone calls were conducted. Data were analysed via six main stages of the framework method, with the social cognitive theory as a reference. Results: Four main sources were identified, including personal screening experience, hearing about other women's screening experiences, professional health education and consultation, and emotional status. Personal screening experience included enactive mastery of completing the screening behaviour and cognitive mastery of internalisation of the screening. Only the experience of completing cervical cancer screening behaviour was not strong enough to improve self‐efficacy. Cognitive mastery showed more critical influence. Conclusion: These four sources of rural females' cervical cancer screening self‐efficacy matched with the major sources of self‐efficacy of the social cognitive theory. Cognition was critical to influencing the screening self‐efficacy. Intervention strategies aimed at enhancing rural females' cervical cancer screening self‐efficacy can be developed from these four major sources. Public Contribution: A registered nurse with rich experience in cervical cancer‐related research and qualitative study was the interviewer of this study. Rural females and cervical cancer screening services providers (healthcare professionals and village staff) were recruited as interviewees. The interview guides were developed by the research team and evaluated by an expert panel including two nurse leaders of gynaecological cancer, one doctor specialised in cervical cancer, and one medical director in a local rural hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]