Factors associated with cervical cancer screening in women from middle and low socioeconomic status in Bogotá, Colombia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rfnsp.10311Keywords:
cervical cancer, screening, barriers, facilitators, health care experiences, preventionAbstract
Objective: in Colombia, cervical cancer (CC) is the second most common type of cancer among women. It has an agestandardized incidence of 21.5/100,000. The purpose of this study was to examine the knowledge and perceived factors associated with CC screening among women from low medium income status in Bogotá, Colombia. Methodology: the study was conducted with 10 focus groups segmented by age groups (18-33, 34-49, and 50-66). Two researchers conducted content analysis and identified the emerging categories. Results: the sample consisted of 81 women whose ages ranged from 18 to 66. Early onset of sexual activity, promiscuity, vaginal infections, HPV, genetics, abortions, and lack of hygiene were identified as the most important risk factors for CC. Participants recognized that this disease does not always have symptoms, and that pap smears detect it early. However, they mentioned fear of undergoing a pap test, discomfort or pain, embarrassment, poor services, procrastination, and fear of a cancer diagnosis as the main barriers preventing regular screening. Women recommended educational campaigns and improved customer service as strategies to motivate them. Conclusion: participants reported basic knowledge about CC and screening. Actions to facilitate screening must be multifaceted and based on the barriers and facilitators mentioned by each age group.
Downloads
References
(1). International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. Globocan 2008: Cancer Incidence and Mortality World-wide [internet]. Lyon: IARC; 2010 [acceso 15 de abril de 2011]. Disponible en: http://globocan.iarc.fr.
(2). Behtash N, Mehrdad N. Cervical cancer: screening and prevention. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2006; 7(4): 683-686.
(3). Miller AB, Chamberlain J, Day NE, Hakama M, Prorok PC. Re-port on a Workshop of the UICC Project on Evaluation of Scree-ning for Cancer. Int J Cancer. 1990; 46(5): 761-769. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.2910460502
(4). Gamboa AO, Chicaíza L, García M, Díaz J, González M, Muri-llo R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of conventional cytology and HPV DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in Colombia. Salud Pú-blica Mex. 2008; 50(4): 276-285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0036-36342008000400005
(5). Rada CV. Editorial. Revista Colombiana Cancerología. 2006; 10: 83-84.
(6). Murillo RH. Control del cáncer de cuello uterino en Colombia: triunfos y desafíos de la tamización basadaen la citología cérvico-uterina. Biomédica. 2008; 28(4): 467-470. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7705/biomedica.v28i4.52
(7). Murillo R, Cendales R, Wiesner C, Piñeros M, Tovar S. Efecti-vidad de la citología cérvico-uterina para la detección temprana de cáncer de cuello uterino en el marco del sistema de salud de Colombia. Biomédica. 2009; 29(3): 354-361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7705/biomedica.v29i3.7
(8). Chocontá LA, Alvis N, De la Hoz F. How protective is cervical cancer screening against cervical cancer mortality in developing countries? The Colombian case. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010; 10: 270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-270
(9). Profamilia BF, Ministerio de la Protección Social y UNFPA. En-cuesta Nacional de Demografía y Salud ENDS. Bogotá D.C: Profamilia; 2010.
(10). Restrepo J, Mejía A, Valencia M, Tamayo L, Salas W. Accesibi-lidad a la citología cervical en Medellín, Colombia en 2006. Rev Esp Salud Pública. 2007; 81(6): 657-666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1135-57272007000600009
(11). Pardo C, Cendales R. Supervivencia de pacientes con cáncer de cuello uterino tratadas en el Instituto Nacional de Cancerología. Biomédica. 2009; 29(3): 437-447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7705/biomedica.v29i3.2
(12). Castro MA, Londoño PA, Vera LM. Asistencia a Citología del Cuello Uterino y sus Determinantes en una Población Rural Colombiana, 1998-1999. Rev Salud Pública (Bogotá). 2006; 8(3): 248-257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0124-00642006000300010
(13). Wiesner C, Vejarano M, Caicedo JC, Tovar SL, Cendales R. La citologia de cuello uterino en Soacha, Colombia: representaciones sociales, barreras y motivaciones. Rev Salud Pública. 2006; 8(3): 185-196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0124-00642006000300004
(14). Lucumi Cuesta DI, Gómez Gutiérrez LF. Accesibilidad a los ser-vicios de salud en la práctica de citología reciente de cuello uterino en una zona urbana de Colombia. Rev Esp Salud Pública. 2004; 78(3): 367-377. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1135-57272004000300006
(15). Granada P, Echeverry MI, Estrada A. Barreras Culturales en la práctica de la citología cervicouterina. Revista Epidemiológica de Pereira. 2003; 6(1): 5-12.
(16). Krippendorff K. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodo-logy. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks. 2004; 413: XXIII.
(17). Stemler S. An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. 2001; 7(17).
(18). Goldman RE, Risica PM. Perceptions of breast and cervical can-cer risk and screening among Dominicans and Puerto Ricans in Rhode Island. Ethn Dis. 2004; 14(1): 32-42.
(19). Nguyen TT, McPhee SJ, Nguyen T, Lam T, Mock J. Predictors of cervical Pap smear screening awareness, intention, and receipt among Vietnamese-American women. Am J Prev Med. 2002; 23(3): 207-214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00499-3
(20). Van Til L, MacQuarrie C, Herbert R. Understanding the barriers to cervical cancer screening among older women. Qual Health Res. 2003; 13(8): 1116-1131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732303255975
(21). Tamayo LS, Chávez MG, Henao LM. Cáncer de cuello uterino: más allá de lo que es; la percepción de las mujeres de Antioquia (Colombia) y Colima (México), 2008. Rev Fac Nac Salud Públi-ca. 2009; 27(2): 177-186.
(22). Agurto I, Bishop A, Sánchez G, Betancourt Z, Robles S. Percei-ved barriers and benefits to cervical cancer screening in Latin America. Prev Med. 2004; 39(1): 91-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.03.040
(23). Mishra A. Implementing HPV vaccines: public knowledge, attitu-des, and the need for education. Int. A Community Health Educ. 2010-2011; 31(1): 71-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2190/IQ.31.1.f
(24). Wiesner C, Cendales R, Murillo R, Piñeros M, Tovar S. Fo-llowing-up females having an abnormal Pap smear in Colombia. Rev Salud Pública. 2010; 12(1): 1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0124-00642010000100001
(25). Austin LT, Ahmad F, McNally MJ, Stewart DE. Breast and cervi-cal cancer screening in Hispanic women: a literature review using the health belief model. Womens Health Issues. 2002; 12(3): 122-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1049-3867(02)00132-9
(26). Behbakht K, Lynch A, Teal S, Degeest K, Massad S. Social and cultural barriers to Papanicolaou test screening in an urban popu-lation. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 104(6): 1355-1361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000143881.53058.81
(27). Bush J. “It ́s just a part of being woman”: cervical screenning, the body and feminity. Soc Sei and Med. 2000; 50: 429-444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00316-0
(28). Johnson CE, Mues KE, Mayne SL, Kiblawi AN. Cervical cancer screening among immigrants and ethnic minorities: a systematic review using the Health Belief Model. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2008; 12(3): 232-241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0b013e31815d8d88
(29). Kitzinger J. Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995; 311 (7000): 299-302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Isabel C. Garcés P., Diana C. Rubio L., Isabel C. Scarinci
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The contents of the articles are the responsibility of the authors
The editorial committee has editorial independence from the National School of Public Health "Héctor Abad Gómez" of the University of Antioquia.
The editorial committee is not responsible for aspects related to copying, plagiarism or fraud that may appear in the articles published in it.
When you are going to reproduce and disclose photographs or personal data in printed or digital format, informed consent is required. Therefore, this requirement is required of the author at the time of receipt of the manuscript.
Authors are responsible for obtaining the necessary permissions to reproduce any material protected by reproduction rights.
The authors preserve the moral rights and assign the economic rights that will correspond to the University of Antioquia, to publish it, distribute electronic copies, include them in indexing services, directories or national and international databases in Open Access, under the Creative Commons Attribution license -Not Commercial-Share Equal 4.0 International Commercial (CC BY-NC-SA) which allows others to distribute, remix, retouch, and create from the work in a non-commercial way, as long as the respective credit and license are granted. new creations under the same conditions.
The authors will sign the declaration of transfer of economic rights to the University of Antioquia, after the acceptance of the manuscript.
The editorial committee reserves the right to reject the articles whose authors do not offer satisfactory explanations about the contribution of each author, to meet the criteria of authorship in the submission letter. All authors must meet the four criteria of authorship according to ICMJE: "a) .- That there is a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the article or to the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of the data. b) That they have participated in the design of the research work or in the critical review of its intellectual content. c) .- That has been intervened in the approval of the final version that will be published.d). That they have the capacity to respond to all aspects of the article in order to ensure that issues related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are adequately investigated and resolved. "
-- 
--
