Journals / Turkish Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care / 2020 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2

The Mammography Screening Ratios and and Factors Affecting to Get It Among Primary Care Health Providers

Birinci basamak sağlık çalışanlarının mamografi tarama oranları ve etkileyen faktörler

Pages
216–223
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is think that, it is necessary to motivate PCPs to increase their awareness of practice on cancer screening.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: This study was conducted to assess the factors associated with the status of primary care providers (PCPs) in their participation in the Breast Cancer Screening Program (BCSP) in Antalya.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: A total of 572 women participants who were over 40 years old and were working in PCPs, Community Health Center, and Provincial Health Directorate participated in this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is think that, it is necessary to motivate PCPs to increase their awareness of practice on cancer screening.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Erken teşhis · kanser taraması · meme kanseri

Abstract

Purpose: This study was conducted to assess the factors associated with the status of primary care providers (PCPs) in their participation in the Breast Cancer Screening Program (BCSP) in Antalya. Methods: A total of 572 women participants who were over 40 years old and were working in PCPs, Community Health Center, and Provincial Health Directorate participated in this study. All of the participants were administered a questionnaire investigating their mammography screen status and factors affecting to get a screen. The study was conducted between 1 June 2018 – 31 October 2018. A binary logistic regression model (to get a mammography screening or not, as a dependent variable) was used to ascertain if the demographic and lifestyle variables predicted the screening behaviors for breast cancer. Results: Among our participants 56,8% of the had a least one mamography screening. The independent factors to get a mammography were observed as aging (OR=1.27 95% CI: 1.02-1.17) (p<0,001); work place (community health center) (OR=2.67 95% CI: 1.19-5.94) (p<0,001); experience (20-29 years) (OR=13.50 95% CI: 4.35-41.85) (p<0,001) and (>29 years) (OR=5.84 95% CI: 1.26-26.9) (p<0,001); chronic diseases (having more than one) (OR=4.97 95% CI: 2.03-12.18) (p<0,001); family history (first-degree) (OR=2.45 95% CI: 1.48-4.03) (p<0,001) and BMI (OR=1.08 95% CI: 1.02-1.15) (p<0,01). Furthermore, the most reported obstacle to the PCPs was difficulty getting time off from work. Conclusion: This study showed that unfortunately, almost half of the healthcare professionals have not had a mammography. It is think that, it is necessary to motivate PCPs to increase their awareness of practice on cancer screening.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, Antalya'da birinci basamak çalışanlarının yürüttükleri meme kanseri tarama programına, kendilerinin katılma durumları ile, ilişkili faktörlerin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Aile hekimliği birimlerinde, ilçe toplum sağlığı merkezlerinde ve il sağlık müdürlüğünde görevli birinci basamak çalışanı 40 yaş ve üzerindeki 572 kadın, 1 Haziran-31 Ekim 2018 arasında yürütülen çalışmaya katıldı. Ki-kare analizi, çeşitli bağımsız ve sonuç değişkenleri arasındaki oranları ve test ilişkilerini göstermek için yapıldı. Demografik ve yaşam tarzı değişkenlerinin meme kanseri tarama davranışlarını öngörüp öngörmediğini belirlemek için ikili bir lojistik regresyon modeli kullanıldı. Bulgular: Katılımcılar arasında meme kanseri tarama programına en az bir kez katılım oranı %56.8 olarak bulundu. Mamografi yaptırmayı belirleyen faktörlerin yaş (OR=1.27 %95 CI: 1.02-1.17) (p<0,001); çalışma yeri (ilçe sağlık müdürlüğü) (OR=2.67 %95 CI: 1.19-5.94) (p<0,001); çalışma süresi (20-29 yıl) (OR=13.50 %95 CI: 4.35-41.85) (p<0,001) and (>29 yıl) (OR=5.84 %95 CI: 1.26-26.9) (p<0,001); kronik hastalık varlığı (en az bir tane) (OR=4.97 %95 CI: 2.03-12.18) (p<0,001); aile öyküsü (birinci derece) (OR=2.45 %95 CI: 1.48-4.03) (p<0,001) and BMI (OR=1.08 %95 CI: 1.02-1.15) (p<0,01) olduğu gözlendi. Taramasını yaptırmayanlar arasında en fazla belirtilen bahanenin işten izin alma zorluğu olduğu görüldü. Sonuç: Bu çalışma, sağlık çalışanlarının neredeyse yarısının meme kanseri taramasını yaptırmadıklarını göstermiştir. Birinci basamak sağlık çalışanlarının, kendi kanser taramaları konusundaki uygulama bilincini artırmak için motive edilmelerinin gerekli olduğu düşünülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

DİRİCAN, O., HÜLÜR, Ü. (2020). The Mammography Screening Ratios and and Factors Affecting to Get It Among Primary Care Health Providers. Turkish Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2, 216–223. https://ajindex.com/articles/374049

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Terrasse V. Latest global cancer data: Cancer burden rises to 18.1 million new cases and 9.6 million cancer deaths in 2018. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2018
  2. https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/pr263_E.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2019 2. Sencan İ, Keskinkilic B. Cancer Statistics of Turkey. Republic of Turkey Ministry of General Directorate of Public Health. 2017
  3. https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/depo/birimler/kanser-db/istatistik/2014-RAPOR._uzuuun.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2019 3. Lauby‑Secretan B., Scoccianti C., Loomis D., Benbrahim‑Tallaa L., Bouvard V., Bianchini F., Straif K. Special Report. Breast-Cancer Screening — Viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. The New England Journal of Medicine 372
  4. nejm.org June 11, 2015 4. Helvie M.A., Bevers T.B. Screening Mammography for Average-Risk Women: The Controversy and NCCN's Position. JNCCN 2018
  5. 16(11). DOI: https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2018.7081 5. Gultekin M. Turkey cancer control programme. Republic of Turkey Ministry of General Directorate of Public Health. 2016
  6. https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/depo/birimler/kanser-db/yayinlar/raporlar/Ulusal_Kanser_Kontrol_Plani_2013_2018.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2019 6. Goksel F. Health care services that require specific planning in Turkey 2011-2023. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health General Directorate of Health Services. 2011
  7. https://dosyamerkez.saglik.gov.tr/Eklenti/4198,turkiyede-ozellikli-planlama-gerektiren-saglik-hizmetleri-2011-2023pdf.pdf?0&_tag1=fb79d6c223c03cbede5145deae5230adb0be2a16. Accessed 26 June 2019 7. Gultekin M., Dundar S., Kucukyildiz I., Karaca M.Z., Boztas G., Turan S.H., et. al. Survival of gynecological cancers in Turkey: where are we at? Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2017
  8. 28(6):e85. doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e85 8. Yalcintas A., Arslantaş A.B., Ecevit P.C., Ozdemirkan T., Ustu Y., Ugurlu M. Female healthcare workers and breast cancer screening. Turkish Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care 2018
  9. 12(2), 92-101. DOI: 10.21763/tjfmpc.432462 9. Kwon HT, Ma GX, Gold RS, Atkinson NL, Wang MQ. Primary Care Physicians’ Cancer Screening Recommendation Practices and Perceptions of Cancer Risk of Asian Americans. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 2013
  10. 14(3): 1999–2004, DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2013.14.3.1999 10. Coskun S, Can H, Turan S. Knowledge about Cervical Cancer Risk Factors and PapSmear Testing Behavior among Female Primary Health CareWorkers: A Study from South Turkey. Asi