A Path Analysis on Factors Influencing Women's Embarrassment undergoing Papanicolaou Tests for Uterine Cervical Neoplasms Screening

Eun-Jung Cho

doi:10.5388/aon.2014.14.3.162

Journal List > Asian Oncol Nurs > v.14(3) > 1081808

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Cho: A Path Analysis on Factors Influencing Women's Embarrassment undergoing Papanicolaou Tests for Uterine Cervical Neoplasms Screening

Original Article

Asian Oncology Nursing 2014; 14(3): 162-172.

Published online: 30 September 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5388/aon.2014.14.3.162

A Path Analysis on Factors Influencing Women's Embarrassment undergoing Papanicolaou Tests for Uterine Cervical Neoplasms Screening

Eun-Jung Cho

School of Nursing, Yeungnam University College, Daegu, Korea.

Address reprint requests to: Cho, Eun-Jung. School of Nursing, Yeungnam University College, 170 Hyeongchung-ro, Nam-gu, Daegu 705-703, Korea. Tel: +82-53-650-9386, Fax: +82-53-625-4705, ejc10004@ync.ac.kr

Received 12 June 2014 Accepted 21 September 2014

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

Embarrassment is an unpleasant emotion that women undergoing Papanicolaou (Pap) tests often experience. These experiences differ according to individual, interactional and cognitive-emotional factors of embarrassment. This study was conducted to identify the factors influencing Pap test embarrassment (PapE) using a path analysis.

Methods

281 women who had Pap tests at four screening sites in G city completed questionnaires assessing the relationships among general characteristics, service locations, medical embarrassment (ME), and PapE. The data were analyzed using SPSS 20.0 Package and LISREL 8.8 program.

Results

PapE was directly influenced by ME, and also both directly and indirectly affected by dispositional embarrassability and sexual experience, while only indirectly affected by psychological experience through ME. PapE concerning social face was both directly and indirectly affected by ME and dispositional embarrassability, while indirectly affected by both income and psychological experience. Only PapE and ME social judgement concern directly affected PapE concerning social face.

Conclusion

To prevent PapE, it seems necessary for health professionals to primarily focus on ME, and then on other factors such as PapE, dispositional embarrassability, ME social judgement, and general characteristics (i.e. education and psychological experience) alongside ME.

Keywords: Papanicolaou Test, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Embarrassment

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

Hypothetical Path Model of Pap Smear Embarrassment.

Fig. 2

Path Diagram of Final Model of Pap Smear Embarrassment.

Table 1

Demographic and Pap Smear Untaking Related Characteristics (N=281)

OGC=Obstetric-Gynecology clinic.

Table 2

Descriptive statistics of Embarrassability, Medical Embarrassment, and Pap Smear Embarrassment (N=281)

ME=Medical embarrassment; PapE=Pap smear embarrassment; USF=Undesirable social face.

Table 3

Goodness of Fit Statistics of the Final Model of Pap Smear Embarrassment

AV=Acceptable value; FFM=Fitness indices of final model.

Table 4

Direct, Indirect, and Total Effect of Model (N=281)

^*p<.05; ^**p<.001; SMC=Squared multiple correlations for structure equations.

References

1. National Cancer Information Center. Gender differences in cancer incidence. Accessed April 15, 2014. http://www.cancer.go.kr.

2. National Cancer Information Center. Comparison of cancer incidence worldwide. Accessed April 15, 2014. http://www.cancer.go.kr.

3. National Cancer Information Center. 2012 Gender differences in cancer mortality. Accessed April 15, 2014. http://www.cancer.go.kr.

4. Waller J, Bartoszek M, Marlowand L, Wardle J. Barriers to cervical cancer screening attendance in England: a population-based survey. J Med Screen. 2009; 16:199–204.

5. Lee EJ, Park JS. Predictors associated with repeated papanicolaou smear for cervical cancer screening. Asian Oncol Nurs. 2013; 13(1):28–36.

6. Waller J, Jackowska M, Marlow L, Wardlea J. Exploring age differences in reasons for nonattendance for cervical screening: a qualitative study. BJOG. 2012; 119(1):26–32.

7. Park SJ, Park WS. Identifying barriers to papanicolaou smear screening in Korean women: Korean national health and nutrition examination survey 2005. J Gynecol Oncol. 2010; 21(2):81–86.

8. Chang SC, Woo JST, Yau V, Gorzalka BB, Brotto LA. Cervical cancer screening and Chinese women: insights from focus groups. Front Psychol. 2013; 4:48.

9. Kissal A, Beser A. Perceptions of barriers and facilitators of cervical cancer early detection behaviors among elderly women. Int J. 2014; 7(1):157–168.

10. Guilfoyle S, Franco R, Gorin SS. Exploring older women's approaches to cervical cancer screening. Health Care Women Int. 2007; 28(10):930–950.

11. Cooper M. Reasons for non-attendance at cervical screening. Nurs Stand. 2011; 25(26):41–46.

12. Park S, Chang S, Chung C. Contents analysis on cognitive-affective experiences in Pap smear participants. J Korean Soc Matern Child Health. 2004; 8(1):37–48.

13. Logan L, Mcilfatrick S. Exploring women's knowledge, experiences and perceptions of cervical cancer screening in an area of social deprivation. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2011; 20:720–727.

14. Teng FF, Mitchell SM, Sekikubo M, Biryabarema C, Byamugisha JK, Steinberg M, et al. Understanding the role of embarrassment in gynecological screening: a qualitative study from the ASPIRE cervical cancer screening project in Uganda. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(4):e004783. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/4/e004783.full.pdf+html. Accessed June 11, 2014.

15. Kwok C1, White K, Roydhouse JK. Chinese-Australian women's knowledge, facilitators and barriers related to cervical cancer screening: a qualitative study. J Immigr Minor Health. 2011; 13(6):1076–1083.

16. Fang DM, Baker DL. Barriers and facilitators of cervical cancer screening among women of Hmong origin. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2013; 24(2):540–555.

17. Tung WC. Cervical cancer screening among Hispanic and Asian American women. Home Health Care Manag Pract. 2011; 23(6):480–483.

18. O'Brien BA, Mill J, Wilson T. Cervical screening in Canadian First Nation Cree women. J Transcult Nurs. 2009; 20(1):83–92.

19. Augusto EF, Rosa MLG, Cavalcanti SMB, Oliveira LHS. Barriers to cervical cancer screening in women attending the family medical program in NiterÓi, Rio de Janeiro. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013; 287:53–58.

20. Cho EJ, Chung BY. Embarrassment; a concept analysis. J Korean Acad Adult Nurs. 2002; 14(2):276–286.

21. Cho EJ, Chung BY, Koo TB. Effect of desexualization care guided by dramaturgical interaction on women's embarrassment during cervical cancer screening. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2003; 9(4):351–368.

22. Cho EJ, Chung BY, Lee K, Consedine NS, Lee WK. Psychometric evaluation of uterine cervical cancer screening embarrassment questionnaire among Korean women: complementary use of Rasch model. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2011; 17(5):463–473.

23. Moettus A, Sklar D, Tandberg D. The effect of physician gender on women's perceived pain and embarrassment during pelvic examination. Am J Emerg Med. 1999; 17(7):635–637.

24. Cho EJ, Chung BY. A descriptive survey on women's embarrassability and embarrassment during cervical screening. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2002; 32(6):832–843.

25. Patton KR, Bartfiels JM, McErlean M. The effect of practitioner characteristics on patient pain and embarrassment during ED internal examinations. Am J Emerg Med. 2003; 1(3):205–207.

26. Goffman E. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Book;1959.

27. Henslin J, Biggs M. Dramaturgical desexualisation: the sociology of the vaginal examination. In : Henslin J, editor. Studies in the sociology of sex. New York: Appleton Century Crofts;1971. p. 136–160.

28. Consedine NS, Krivoddshekova YS, Harris CR. Bodily embarrassment and judgment concern as separable factors in the measurement of medical embarrassment: psychometric development and links to treatment-seeking outcomes. Br J Health Psychol. 2007; 12:439–462.

29. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. 4th ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc;1995.

30. Kelly KM, Jones WH. Assessment of dispositional embarrassability. Anxiety Stress Coping. 1997; 10:307–333.

TOOLS

Similar articles