Limits...
Breast cancer risk perceptions of Turkish women attending primary care: a cross-sectional study.

Kartal M, Ozcakar N, Hatipoglu S, Tan MN, Guldal AD - BMC Womens Health (2014)

Bottom Line: The numeric measure correlated better with worry and Gail scores.This was especially obvious with the result that nearly one third had had no mammography.There is a need for further studies to understand why and how this optimism is maintained so that better screening strategies can be applied at PHCC.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Family Medicine, Medical Faculty of Dokuz Eylul University, 35340, Inciralti, Izmir, Turkey. mehtapkartal@gmail.com.

ABSTRACT

Background: As the risks and benefits of early detection and primary prevention strategies for breast cancer are beginning to be quantified, the risk perception of women has become increasingly important as may affect their screening behaviors. This study evaluated the women's breast cancer risk perception and their accuracy, and determined the factors that can affect their risk perception accuracy.

Methods: Data was collected in a cross-sectional survey design. Questionnaire, including breast cancer risk factors, risk perceptions and screening behaviors, answered by 624 women visiting primary health care center (PHCC). "Perceived risk" investigated with numeric and verbal measures. Accuracy of risk perception was determined by women's Gail 5-year risk scores.

Results: The mean age of the participants was 59.62 ± 1.97 years. Of the women 6.7% had a first-degree relative with breast cancer, 68.9% performed breast self-examination and 62.3% had a mammography, and 82.9% expressed their breast cancer worry as "low". The numeric measure correlated better with worry and Gail scores. Of the women 65.5% perceived their breast cancer risk accurately. Among the women in "high risk" group 65.7% underestimated, while in "average risk" group 25.4% overestimated their risk.

Conclusions: Turkish women visiting PHCC are overtly and overly optimistic. This was especially obvious with the result that nearly one third had had no mammography. There is a need for further studies to understand why and how this optimism is maintained so that better screening strategies can be applied at PHCC. All health workers working at PHCC have to be aware of this optimism to prevent missed opportunities for cancer screening.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Numeric measure for risk perceptions of women.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4262994&req=5

Fig1: Numeric measure for risk perceptions of women.

Mentions: “Perceived risk” was investigated with regards to numeric and verbal measures. The numeric measure was displayed with pie charts showing risk as simple fractions, risk 1 out of 3 women (1/3), 1 out of 10 women (1/10), 1 out of 50 women (1/50), 1 out of 100 women (1/100) and 1 out of 1000 women (1/1000) as shown in Figure 1.The verbal measure was asked as, “What would you say about your risk having breast cancer?”, and answered by 5-point Likert scale, namely as very low, low, moderate, high, very high. For the final analyses for risk perception, these variables dichotomized to low and high risk. Low risk included 1/100 and 1/1000 values for numeric measure and “very low, low” replies for verbal measure, while all others included in “high risk”.Figure 1


Breast cancer risk perceptions of Turkish women attending primary care: a cross-sectional study.

Kartal M, Ozcakar N, Hatipoglu S, Tan MN, Guldal AD - BMC Womens Health (2014)

Numeric measure for risk perceptions of women.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4262994&req=5

Fig1: Numeric measure for risk perceptions of women.
Mentions: “Perceived risk” was investigated with regards to numeric and verbal measures. The numeric measure was displayed with pie charts showing risk as simple fractions, risk 1 out of 3 women (1/3), 1 out of 10 women (1/10), 1 out of 50 women (1/50), 1 out of 100 women (1/100) and 1 out of 1000 women (1/1000) as shown in Figure 1.The verbal measure was asked as, “What would you say about your risk having breast cancer?”, and answered by 5-point Likert scale, namely as very low, low, moderate, high, very high. For the final analyses for risk perception, these variables dichotomized to low and high risk. Low risk included 1/100 and 1/1000 values for numeric measure and “very low, low” replies for verbal measure, while all others included in “high risk”.Figure 1

Bottom Line: The numeric measure correlated better with worry and Gail scores.This was especially obvious with the result that nearly one third had had no mammography.There is a need for further studies to understand why and how this optimism is maintained so that better screening strategies can be applied at PHCC.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Family Medicine, Medical Faculty of Dokuz Eylul University, 35340, Inciralti, Izmir, Turkey. mehtapkartal@gmail.com.

ABSTRACT

Background: As the risks and benefits of early detection and primary prevention strategies for breast cancer are beginning to be quantified, the risk perception of women has become increasingly important as may affect their screening behaviors. This study evaluated the women's breast cancer risk perception and their accuracy, and determined the factors that can affect their risk perception accuracy.

Methods: Data was collected in a cross-sectional survey design. Questionnaire, including breast cancer risk factors, risk perceptions and screening behaviors, answered by 624 women visiting primary health care center (PHCC). "Perceived risk" investigated with numeric and verbal measures. Accuracy of risk perception was determined by women's Gail 5-year risk scores.

Results: The mean age of the participants was 59.62 ± 1.97 years. Of the women 6.7% had a first-degree relative with breast cancer, 68.9% performed breast self-examination and 62.3% had a mammography, and 82.9% expressed their breast cancer worry as "low". The numeric measure correlated better with worry and Gail scores. Of the women 65.5% perceived their breast cancer risk accurately. Among the women in "high risk" group 65.7% underestimated, while in "average risk" group 25.4% overestimated their risk.

Conclusions: Turkish women visiting PHCC are overtly and overly optimistic. This was especially obvious with the result that nearly one third had had no mammography. There is a need for further studies to understand why and how this optimism is maintained so that better screening strategies can be applied at PHCC. All health workers working at PHCC have to be aware of this optimism to prevent missed opportunities for cancer screening.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus