背景:虽然筛查摄取是可变的,许多人认为他们“应该”参加筛查计划,以帮助发现适合早期治疗的疾病。那些不参加筛查的人通常会受到实际或社会障碍的阻碍,或者个人有过错。为什么有些人选择不参与得到较少考虑。
方法:我们通过检查选择不参加英格兰一项全国性房颤(AF)筛查研究试验(SAFER:用心电图筛查房颤以减少卒中)提供的筛查的参与者的情况,来探索不参与筛查的情况。房颤是一种心律失常,其患病率随年龄增长而增加,并增加中风的风险。在英国,房颤的系统筛查不是一项全国性的计划;它提供了一个独特的机会,可以探索现有基于人群的筛查计划所附带的规范和价值观之外的不参与筛查。我们采访了65岁以上(n=50)的人,他们拒绝了SAFER的邀请,并按主题分析了他们的帐户。
结果:除了不参与的实际原因之外,受访者质疑早期识别和管理AF的效用。许多人质疑在他们的年龄进行筛查的好处。该试验将筛查作为研究的介绍使其感觉是自愿的-他们可以合法地拒绝。
结论:非参与者对参与促进健康的行为没有抵抗力,不了解筛查或不支持其潜在益处。相反,他们对感知必要性的考虑,这种筛选的合法性和实用性决定了他们不参加的决定。
■SAFER计划由四名患者和护理人员代表指导。代表嵌入团队(例如,一个是共同申请人,另一个成员是方案指导委员会的成员),并通过参加定期会议就设计的所有方面提供咨询,方案的管理和交付,包括参与解释和传播调查结果。对于定性工作流,我们成立了一个补充患者和公众参与小组,我们定期咨询研究设计问题。
While screening uptake is variable, many individuals feel they \'ought\' to participate in screening programmes to aid the detection of conditions amenable to early treatment. Those not taking part in screening are often presented as either hindered by practical or social barriers or personally at fault. Why some people choose not to participate receives less consideration.
We explored screening nonparticipation by examining the accounts of participants who chose not to participate in screening offered by a national research
trial of atrial fibrillation (AF) screening in England (SAFER: Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke). AF is a heart arrhythmia that increases in prevalence with age and increases the risk of stroke. Systematic screening for AF is not a nationally adopted programme within the United Kingdom; it provides a unique opportunity to explore screening nonparticipation outside of the norms and values attached to existing population-based screening programmes. We interviewed people aged over 65 (n = 50) who declined an invitation from SAFER and analysed their accounts thematically.
Beyond practical reasons for nonparticipation, interviewees challenged the utility of identifying and managing AF earlier. Many questioned the benefits of screening at their age. The
trial\'s presentation of the screening as research made it feel voluntary-something they could legitimately decline.
Nonparticipants were not resistant to engaging in health-promoting behaviours, uninformed about screening or unsupportive of its potential benefits. Instead, their consideration of the perceived necessity, legitimacy and utility of this screening shaped their decision not to take part.
The SAFER programme is guided by four patient and carer representatives. The representatives are embedded within the team (e.g., one is a co-applicant, another sits on the programme steering committee) and by participating in regular meetings advise on all aspects of the design, management and delivery of the programme, including engaging with interpreting and disseminating the findings. For the qualitative workstream, we established a supplementary patient and public involvement group with whom we regularly consult about research design questions.