Factors affecting participation in population-based mammography screening

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye'nin kırsal bir alanında topluma dayalı mamografi taramasına katılımı etkileyen demografik ve risk faktörlerini incelemektir. Hastalar ve Yöntemler: Tanımlayıcı epidemiyolojik çalışma olarak tasarlanan araştırmanın veri toplanması Aralık 2002 ve Ağustos 2003 tarihleri arasında Ankara'nın bir ilçesinde yapıldı. Toplam 784 kadından 710'u ile görüşüldü ve 462'si (%58.9) taramaya katıldı. Veri toplamak için anket formu kullanıldı. Bulgular: Kadınların ortalama yaşı 50.7±10.0 yıldı. Bekar dul veya boşanmış olanların %54'ünün (p=0.0001), 60 yaş ve üzerindekilerin %62.5'inin (p

Topluma dayalı mamografi taramasına katılımı etkileyen faktörler

Objectives: This study aims to investigate the demographic or risk factors affecting participation in a population-based breast screening with mammography program in a rural area of Turkey. Patients and Methods: This definitive epidemiological study was carried out between December 2002 and August 2003, in a town of Ankara. Of the 784 women, 710 were interviewed and 462 (58.9%) of them participated in the screening. A questionnaire was used for collecting data. Results: The mean age of the women was 50.7±10.0 years. Fifty four percent of the single, widowed or divorced women (p=0.001), 62.5% of those aged 60 years or older (p<0.001), and 42.8% of the illiterate or literate women (p<0.001) did not participate the screening. Women, who were elder had a 1.1-fold greater risk of nonparticipation in mammography screening than younger ones (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.09), and those who were postmenopausal had 1.5-fold greater risk than those who were premenopausal (95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.22). Conclusion: Age, marital, educational and menopausal statuses seem to be effective on participation in the population-based study. Screening programs should be planned considering these factors.

___

  • 1) Henderson BE, Pike MC, Bernstein L, Ross RK. Breast cancer. In: Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni JF Jr, editors. Cancer epidemiology and prevention. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 1022-40.
  • 2) Trichopoulos D, Lipworth L, Petridou E, Adami HO. Epidemiology of cancer. In: DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, editors. Cancer principles and practice of oncology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1997. p. 231-59.
  • 3) IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention, Vol. 7: Breast cancer screening. Lyon: World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2002. p. 1-4.
  • 4) The World Health Report 2003. Available from: http:// www.who.int/whr/2003/en/Annex3-en.pdf, accessed 4 March 2008.
  • 5) European Community Commission Suggestion for a Council Recommendation on Cancer Screening 2003. Available from: http://www.saglik.gov.tr/extras/birimler/ ksdb/ABkanser_tarama_tav_kar.doc, accessed 4 March 2008.
  • 6) Burden of Disease Final Report. National Burden of Disease and Cost-Effectiveness Project. Ankara: The Ministry of Health of Turkey, Başkent University, School of Public Health; 2005. p. 581-8.
  • 7) Death Statistics in the Province and Town Centers 2004. Ankara: Republic of Turkey, Turkish Statistics Institute; 2006. p. 72-88.
  • 8) Özdemir A. Imaging modalities and screening in breast cancer. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Oncol-Special Topics 2008;1:5-10.
  • 9) Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, Burke W, Costanza ME, Evans WP 3rd, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53:141-69.
  • 10) Recommendations and Rationale Screening for Breast Cancer U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Available from: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/ breastCancer/brcanrr.htm, accessed 10 November 2008.
  • 11) Anderson BO, Braun S, Lim S, Smith RA, Taplin S, Thomas DB; Global Summit Early Detection Panel. Early detection of breast cancer in countries with limited resources. Breast J 2003;9 Suppl 2:S51-9.
  • 12) Ward J. Population-based mammographic screening: does 'informed choice' require any less than full disclosure to individuals of benefits, harms, limitations and consequences? Aust N Z J Public Health 1999;23:301-4.
  • 13) Taplin SH, Barlow WE, Ludman E, MacLehos R, Meyer DM, Seger D, et al. Testing reminder and motivational telephone calls to increase screening mammography: a randomized study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:233-42.
  • 14) Carney PA, Harwood BG, Weiss JE, Eliassen MS, Goodrich ME. Factors associated with interval adherence to mammography screening in a population-based sample of New Hampshire women. Cancer 2002;95:219-27.
  • 15) Baré ML, Montes J, Florensa R, Sentís M, Donoso L. Factors related to non-participation in a population-based breast cancer screening programme. Eur J Cancer Prev 2003;12:487-94.
  • 16) Crane LA, Leakey TA, Rimer BK, Wolfe P, Woodworth MA, Warnecke RB. Effectiveness of a telephone outcall intervention to promote screening mammography among low-income women. Prev Med 1998;27(5 Pt 2):S39-49.
  • 17) Bulliard JL, De Landtsheer JP, Levi F. Reattendance in the Swiss mammography screening pilot programme. J Med Screen 2004;11:59-64.
  • 18) Augustson EM, Vadaparampil ST, Paltoo DN, Kidd LR, O'Malley AS. Association between CBE, FOBT, and Pap smear adherence and mammography adherence among older low-income women. Prev Med 2003;36:734-9.
  • 19) Svane G, Potchen EJ, Sierra A, Azavedo E. Problems in breast cancer detection. In: Paterson A, editor. Screening mammography. St Louis: Mosby; 1993. p. 17-66.
  • 20) Poplack SP, Tosteson AN, Grove MR, Wells WA, Carney PA. Mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire mammography network. Radiology 2000;217:832-40.
  • 21) Paquette D, Snider J, Bouchard F, Olivotto I, Bryant H, Decker K, et al. Performance of screening mammography in organized programs in Canada in 1996. The Database Management Subcommittee to the National Committee for the Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Initiative. CMAJ 2000;163:1133-8.
Trakya Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 1301-3149
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2018
  • Yayıncı: -
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Comparison of analgesic effects of intraperitoneal lornoxicam and ropivacaine administration in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Ceyhun MEMEDOV, Öner MENTEŞ, ABDURRAHMAN ŞİMŞEK, Can KECE, Gökhan YAĞCI, Ali HARLAK, Ahmet COŞAR, Turgut TUFAN

Motor neuron disease presenting with dropped head

Kemal BALCI, Yahya ÇELİK, Talip ASİL, Ufuk UTKU

Varikoselli hastalarda pampiniform pleksus ile brakial ven arasındaki kan gazı değerlerinin karşılaştırılması

Ali BEYTUR, Ahmet SOYLU, Yahya Murat UĞRAŞ, Ali GÜNEŞ, Yaşar Can BAYDİNÇ

Factors affecting participation in population-based mammography screening

Işıl MARAL, İrem Işıl BUDAKOĞLU, Ayşegül ÖZDEMİR, Mehmet Ali BUMİN

Pulling of hair while sleeping: A pediatric case

Işık GÖRKER, SERAP TEVHİDE KARASALİHOĞLU, LEVENT ÖZTÜRK

Factors affecting the quality of life in climacteric women in Manisa region

Ümit İNCEBOZ, HÜLYA DEMİRCİ, Hülya ÖZBAŞARAN, AYDEN ÇOBAN, SEVGİ NEHİR

Lung adenocarcinoma: A rare metastasis to the tongue

MEHMET GÜVEN, Serpil ÖCAL, Ahmet EYİBİLEN, İBRAHİM ALADAĞ, REŞİT DOĞAN KÖSEOĞLU

The effect of vitamin e-coated tracheotomy cannula on tracheal reactive oxygen species

Murat SARI, Zahide Mine YAZICI, Nevruz ÖZDEMİR, Mustafa YANIK, Cüneyt ÜNERİ

The effects of related factors on one- and two-year mortality after a hip fracture in elderly Turkish patients

TOLGA ATAY, Gökçe Berit CEYLAN, Ahmet ÖZMERİÇ, FÜSUN EROĞLU, Lütfi YAVUZ, NURETTİN HEYBELİ, Metin Lütfi BAYDAR

Neonatal forearm compartment syndrome: Case report

Atakan AYDIN, AHMET BİÇER, Karaca BAŞARAN, Barış KEKLİK