41 Determinants of (non)attendance at the Dutch CSPs 18. Crowe M. Crowe critical appraisal tool (CCAT) user guide. Conchra House: Scotland, UK 2013. 19. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19: 349-357. 20. de Vries H, Mesters I, Van de Steeg H et al. The general public’s information needs and perceptions regarding hereditary cancer: an application of the Integrated Change Model. Patient Education and Counseling 2005; 56: 154-165. 21. Groenenberg I, Crone MR, van Dijk S et al. ‘Check it out!’Decision-making of vulnerable groups about participation in a two-stage cardiometabolic health check: A qualitative study. Patient Education and Counseling 2015; 98: 234-244. 22. Nierkens V, Stronks K, Van Oel CJ, de Vries HJHer. Beliefs of Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in The Netherlands about smoking cessation: implications for prevention. Health education research 2005; 20: 622-634. 23. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes 1991; 50: 179-211. 24. Janz NK, Becker MH. The health belief model: A decade later. Health education quarterly 1984; 11: 1-47. 25. Rogers RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. The journal of psychology 1975; 91: 93-114. 26. Weinstein ND, Lyon JE, Sandman PM, Cuite CLJHp. Experimental evidence for stages of health behavior change: the precaution adoption process model applied to home radon testing. Health psychology 1998; 17: 445. 27. Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap Praktijkhandleiding. Wijziging bevolkingsonderzoek darmkanker 2017. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from https://www.nhg.org/actueel/ nieuws/wijziging-bevolkingsonderzoek-darmkanker 28. Kreuger FAF, van Oers HAM, Nijs HGT. Cervical cancer screening: spatial associations of outcome and risk factors in Rotterdam. Public Health 1999; 113: 111-115. 29. Bosgraaf RP, Ketelaars PJW, Verhoef VMJ et al. Reasons for non-attendance to cervical screening and preferences for HPV self-sampling in Dutch women. Preventive Medicine: An International Journal Devoted to Practice and Theory 2014; 64: 108-113. 30. de Nooijer DP, de Waart FG, van Leeuwen AWFM, Spijker WWJ. Participation in the Dutch national screening programme for uterine cervix cancer higher after invitation by a general practitioner, especially in groups with a traditionally low level of attendance. [Dutch]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde 2005; 149: 2339-2343. 31. Tacken MAJB, Braspenning JCC, Hermens RPMG et al. Uptake of cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands is mainly influenced by women’s beliefs about the screening and by the inviting organization. European Journal of Public Health 2007; 17: 178-185. 32. Deutekom M, Rijn A, Dekker E et al. Uptake of faecal occult blood test colorectal cancer screening by different ethnic groups in the Netherlands. European journal of public health. 2009; 400-402. 33. Visser O, van Peppen AM, Ory FG, van Leeuwen FE. Results of breast cancer screening in first generation migrants in Northwest Netherlands. Eur J Cancer Prev 2005; 14: 251-255. 34. Aarts MJ, Voogd AC, Duijm LEM et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in attending the mass screening for breast cancer in the south of the Netherlands-associations with stage at diagnosis and survival. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2011; 128: 517-525. 35. Vermeer B, van Den Muijsenbergh METC. The attendance of migrant women at the national breast cancer screening in the Netherlands 1997-2008. European Journal of Cancer Prevention 2010; 19: 195-198. 2
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw