Article Text

Original research
Qualitative evaluation of a codesigned faith-based intervention for Muslim women in Scotland to encourage uptake of breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening
  1. Floor Christie-de Jong1,
  2. Marie Kotzur2,
  3. Rana Amiri1,
  4. Jonathan Ling1,
  5. John D. Mooney3,
  6. Kathryn A. Robb2
  1. 1 Faculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK
  2. 2 Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
  3. 3 NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Floor Christie-de Jong; Floor.Christie{at}sunderland.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives This pilot study aimed to evaluate the acceptability of a codesigned, culturally tailored, faith-based online intervention to increase uptake of breast, colorectal and cervical screening in Scottish Muslim women. The intervention was codesigned with Scottish Muslim women (n=10) and underpinned by the reframe, reprioritise and reform model and the behaviour change wheel.

Setting The study was conducted online, using Zoom, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Participants Participants (n=18) taking part in the intervention and subsequently in its evaluation, were Muslim women residing in Scotland, recruited through purposive and snowball sampling from a mosque and community organisations. Participants were aged between 25 years and 54 years and of Asian and Arab ethnicity.

Design The study’s codesigned intervention included (1) a peer-led discussion of barriers to screening, (2) a health education session led by a healthcare provider, (3) videos of Muslim women’s experiences of cancer or screening, and (4) a religious perspective on cancer screening delivered by a female religious scholar (alimah). The intervention was delivered twice online in March 2021, followed 1 week later by two focus groups, consisting of the same participants, respectively, to discuss participants’ experiences of the intervention. Focus group transcripts were analysed thematically.

Results Participants accepted the content and delivery of the intervention and were positive about their experience of the intervention. Participants reported their knowledge of screening had increased and shared positive views towards cancer screening. They valued the multidimensional delivery of the intervention, appreciated the faith-based perspective, and in particular liked the personal stories and input from a healthcare provider.

Conclusion Participatory and community-centred approaches can play an important role in tackling health inequalities in cancer and its screening. Despite limitations, the intervention showed potential and was positively received by participants. Feasibility testing is needed to investigate effectiveness on a larger scale in a full trial.

  • PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
  • QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
  • PUBLIC HEALTH
  • SOCIAL MEDICINE
  • ONCOLOGY

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Ethical restrictions related to participant confidentiality prohibit the authors from making the data set publicly available. During the consent process, participants were explicitly guaranteed that the data would only be seen my members of the study team. For any discussions about the data set please contact the corresponding author: floor.christie@sunderland.ac.uk.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Ethical restrictions related to participant confidentiality prohibit the authors from making the data set publicly available. During the consent process, participants were explicitly guaranteed that the data would only be seen my members of the study team. For any discussions about the data set please contact the corresponding author: floor.christie@sunderland.ac.uk.

View Full Text

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

Footnotes

  • Twitter @floorchristie

  • Contributors FC-dJ developed the concept of the study, FC-dJ, MK, KR, JL and RA designed the study together; FC-dJ, MK and RA collected the data led by MK; FC-dJ and MK conducted the analysis guided by KR and JL. FC-dJ, MK, KR, JL, RA, JM all contributed to the manuscript. FC-dJ was responsible for the overall paper, with input from the entire team. All authors critically reveiwed the final version of the manuscript.

  • Funding This work was supported by a grant from the Screening Inequalities Fund, the Scottish Government, Public Health Directorate, for which we are very thankful.

  • Disclaimer The funding sources had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, the writing of the report or the decision to submit the article for publication.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.