IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Cognition and affect after cervical screening: The role of previous test outcome and personal obligation in future uptake expectations

Listed author(s):
  • Orbell, Sheina
Registered author(s):

    276 women aged 20 to 60 years who had recently undergone the cervical smear test for detection of cervical abnormalities were interviewed concerning their experiences at screening, the screening test and their future screening expectations. The vast majority of women indicated that it was very likely they would undergo future tests, in spite of recently publicised concerns about negative impacts of positive results. The analysis further demonstrated that future screening expectations were best explained not by appraisals of disease threat, but by a sense of obligation to attend and by perceptions of the aversiveness of the test procedure. Women who reported that their last test had been painful or embarrassing held more negative views of a future test, but a prior positive result was not implicated in women's expectations concerning future screening. Social class was associated with future uptake expectations, even amongst this sample of women who had already undergone the test. Multivariate analysis showed that the effects of social class on expectations concerning future participation in screening was explained by the tendency of lower class women to view the test as aversive and to feel less personal obligation to attend.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 43 (1996)
    Issue (Month): 8 (October)
    Pages: 1237-1243

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:43:y:1996:i:8:p:1237-1243
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:43:y:1996:i:8:p:1237-1243. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.