Setting
This study was carried out in Gellerup, which is a socially deprived suburban area in Aarhus, the second biggest city in Denmark with more than 345,000 citizens [
21]. Gellerup has more than 5600 citizens and is characterised by an unemployment rate of 52.5, and 79.4% of the citizens are from non-Western countries, predominantly from the Middle East and Somalia [
21,
22].
The Danish medical system is based on the principle of free and equal access to preventive care and treatment for all residents. This includes free access to nationwide cancer screening programmes and any follow-up visits and treatment derived from participation in cancer screening. Since the 1960s cervical cancer screening has been gradually implemented. Today the Danish women are invited to participate in screening for cervical cancer every 3 years when aged 23–49 and every 5 years when aged 50–64. The invitation is sent by digital mail recommending the woman to book an appointment at a general practitioner to have a cervical cytology specimen collected during a gynaecological examination [
23]. All Danish women aged 50–69 are since 2007 also offered biennial breast cancer screening. In the screening invitation, women are offered a pre-booked mammography appointment at a screening hub [
24]. The colorectal cancer screening programme was implemented in 2014 for citizens aged 50–74 and uses faecal immunochemical test self-sample kits, sent directly to the home, with the invitation to collect a faecal sample and mail it directly to a laboratory [
25]. All programmes have a reminder system. Citizens, who do not participate despite invitation and reminder(s) receive a new invitation in the next screening round if they are still in the relevant age group, unless they have actively opted out of the screening programme. All communication and written material about the cancer screening programmes is in Danish.
The Danish cervical cancer screening programme has a participation rate of 74.5% for Danish women and 61.1% for ethnic minority women [
8]. The Danish breast cancer screening programme has a participation rate of 79.6% for the Danish women and 57.3% for ethnic minority women [
12]. The Danish colorectal cancer screening programme has a participation rate of 71.5% for the Danish women and 56.1% for ethnic minority women [
13].
Design and recruitment
This was a qualitative interview study with ethnic minority women. The interview study was based on a phenomenological approach [
26] aiming to describe the phenomenon ‘cancer screening’ as seen from the ethnic minority women’s lifeworlds. Thus, the phenomenological perspective allowed us to gain a greater insight through subjective experienced descriptions, and it served as a guiding principle for the research process.
The participants were recruited through snowball sampling [
27] in different social societies in the area. Co-author TBR identified the eligible participants from her general practice surgery in Gellerup according to a maximum variation sampling strategy including ethnic minority status from non-Western countries (both first and second-generation immigrants) and ages between 23 and 74 years old [
28]. TBR gave, with her patients consent, their contact information to first author CRT. In parallel with TBR’s recruitment, CRT interacted with the people in the area and contacted different communities and local cultural societies, for instance “the Neighbourhood Mothers”. This local society includes women with an ethnic minority background who do voluntary work in the community by supporting vulnerable women, to convey important information and build bridges between ethnic minority women and the Danish society [
29]. CRT was introduced to the area by the Neighbourhood Mothers and recruited participants by a face to face approach. The study aimed to reflect the views of as many ethnic minorities as possible in the deprived area; therefore recruitment of participants with limited Danish language skills was relevant. With guidelines from CRT the Neighbourhood Mothers also recruited participants to the interviews. Additionally three experts in Somali, Arabic and Southeast Asian culture were recruited to individual interviews. They were members of different executive committees or handpicked based on their social engagement in the community. All eligible participants were given verbal and written information about the study in Danish or in their native language before the interviews.
Data collection
The interviews were conducted from April to June 2019. The study included tree different types of interviews; semi-structured focus groups, group interviews with an interpreter and individual interviews with experts in different cultures. An assessment of the information power during the collection period determined the number of participants. Data was obtained until the collection of statements and perspectives were large enough to describe the phenomenon and reach the aim of the study in a satisfactory manner [
30].
A semi-structured interview guide was designed to assess specific themes, while allowing the participants to communicate freely in their own words about their experiences and perceptions of cancer and screening [
31]. It covered the following themes: healthcare seeking behaviour, health perceptions, knowledge about cancer, cancer prevention and early detection, knowledge about cancer screening, individual and socio-cultural barriers, attitudes towards the screening programmes and cancer screening invitations, coping strategies and facilitators to screening (see the interview guide, Table
1). In the last part of every interview a short presentation was held (15 min) by one of the researchers about cancer and screening to observe the participants’ responses to the rationale behind the Danish cancer screening programmes, and gain insight into the participants’ pre-existing knowledge about cancer screening. The participants were also introduced to a faecal immunochemical test self-sampling kit used in the Danish colorectal cancer screening programme. Furthermore they were introduced to two different types of HPV (human papillomavirus) self-sampling kits for screening for cervical cancer. These two self-sampling kits are not yet implemented in the Danish screening programme. The interview guide was based on discussions in the research team and used for the different types of interviews. The interview guide and the phrasing of the questions during the interviews were slightly modified according to the interview type and the participants’ language skills. In this study we present the results concerning perceptions and perceived barriers towards cancer and screening.
| Briefing | Presentation round (research team and participants) followed by a short introduction to the study, oral consent and how a focus group works. |
PART ONE: Own health, cancer and the medical system |
How do ethnic minority women experience the Danish medical system? | Healthcare seeking behaviour | • How do you feel about going to your GP in Denmark? Vs. your native country? Relationship to the GP? • When and why do seek medical assistance? |
Which perceptions about health do ethnic minority women have? | Health perceptions | • Do you know any health myths? What is a healthy body? Responsibility? Do you worry about your health? • Sources of knowledge? |
What do ethnic minority women know about cancer? | Knowledge about cancer | • Why do we get cancer? Causes? Treatment? Sources of knowledge? |
What are ethnic minority women’s attitudes toward prevention and early detection | Prevention and early detection | • Can you be sick without any symptoms? Can you go to your GP without any symptoms? What does it mean to prevent? What are the benefits with early detection? |
PART TWO: Cancer screening |
How aware and what do ethnic minority women know about cancer screening? | Knowledge about cancer screening | • Do you know why you are invited to screening? Purpose? Relevant? • Are you vaccinated (HPV)? |
Which specific individual and cultural barriers may prevent ethnic minority women from participate in cancer screening? | Individual and socio-cultural barriers | • What do you consider before deciding whether or not to get screened? Does the opinion of others matter to you? Language? Concerns? |
| Short presentation about cancer and screening | |
What are the attitudes toward preventive cancer screening? | Attitudes towards the screening programmes | • Are you more likely to participate in one program than another? Why? How do you feel about the different screening procedures? |
Which specific system related barriers may prevent ethnic minority women from participate in cancer screening? | Cancer screening invitation and coping strategy | • What happens when you get invited to screening (step by step)? • What do you think about ‘e-boks’ (digital mail)? What do you use ‘e-boks’ for? • How would you like to be invited and informed about cancer screening? |
Which ideas do ethnic minority women have that facilitate cancer screening? | Facilitators to screening | • How can we get cancer screening more relevant for you? • What do you see as an obstacle to get screened? • Opinions about other ideas (from other focus groups and literature) |
| Debriefing | Thank you for your participation – Is there anything you would like to add? |
Prior to the interviews, the participants were asked to complete a consent form and a questionnaire designed by the research team. All interviews started with a short introduction to the study. The interviews ended with a debriefing where the participants were given an extra opportunity to speak one’s mind. After the interviews, the participants received a gift voucher (25 euros) as an appreciation of their interview participation. All the interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim afterwards. Depending on the participants’ wishes, the interviews took place at a closed beauty salon, a meeting room at the local mall, or a meeting room in a community house. Immediately after each interview, the interview was discussed among the researchers and notes from the interview were compared and elaborated for later use in the analysis.
The focus groups were conducted by minimum two researchers (CRT, SBE and/or PK). CRT has experience with conducting focus groups and interviewing vulnerable people. PK is an experienced interviewer and researcher using qualitative methodology. SBE is knowledgeable about ethnic minority women and a skilled medical teacher. CRT was the moderator in the interviews and PK and SBE supplemented the discussion. The constellation with more than one researcher allowed all the researchers to concentrate on listening, understanding, taking notes and asking questions.
The group interviews were conducted by CRT, PK and a tele-interpreter. The participants were asked to complete the same consent form but in a translated version in their native language. The individual interviews were conducted by CRT. Preliminary data from the focus groups and the interviews with a tele-interpreter were added to the semi-structured interview guide for the individual interviews with experts for discussion.
Data analysis
The inductive content analysis of the interviews focused on the contextual meaning of the women’s perspectives, experiences and descriptions. The purpose was to explore the research questions (see the interview guide, Table
1) based on data instead of verifying data based on a predetermined theory. Therefore, the women’s perspectives on cancer and experiences with cancer screening evolved freely from the material rather than from established categories. As part of the preliminary analysis, the interviews were carefully read to obtain an overall impression of the material, and additionally the field notes from the interviews were used to contextualise the findings [
32,
33]. The analysis began with an open coding of the material, followed by the development of subthemes and finally main themes. Initially this process was conducted by CRT, after which CRT and PK discussed the groupings of the codes to subthemes to main themes. The analysis was a dialectical interaction between the steps mentioned, before the results were final [
34,
35]. The research team met regularly to discuss the analysis and results.