medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2024, Number 03

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2024; 92 (03)

Barriers associated with lack of interest in the Papanicolaou result

Huaranga LD, Ku CE

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 97-104
PDF size: 186.39 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To identify the personal, cultural and institutional barriers associated with patients' lack of interest in knowing (obtaining) the report of the Papanicolaou test.
Materials and Methods: Observational, analytical, case-control study carried out in the Moyopampa Health Center, district of Lurigancho-Chosica, in Lima-Peru, during December 2022. The sample consisted of cases (patients who did not obtain the report of the last Papanicolaou test performed in the last two years) and controls (patients who came to obtain their report). Study parameters: personal, cultural and institutional barriers recorded in a previously validated questionnaire. The association between variables was estimated with Pearson's χ2 and Fisher's exact test, odds ratio with 95% confidence interval and p ‹ 0.05.
Results: 138 cases and 138 controls were examined. Regarding personal barriers, age 25-35 years was significantly associated with disinterest in reporting (MR = 0.021; 95%CI: 0.35-0.92; p = 0.021). Lack of education or having attended only primary school was associated with disinterest in collecting Pap smear reports (MR = 2.83; 95%CI: 1.30-6.15; p = 0.007); not having heard of the Pap smear was associated with disinterest in collecting Pap smear reports (MR = 2.83; 95%CI: 1.30-6.15; p = 0.007); not having heard of the Pap smear was associated with disinterest in collecting Pap smear reports (MR = 2.83; 95%CI: 1.30-6.15; p = 0.007). 007); not having heard of human papillomavirus (HPV) (MR = 2.56; 95%CI: 1.17-5.60; p = 0.016); and having difficulty because of work schedule (MR = 2.01; 95%CI: 1.23-3.27; p = 0.005).
Conclusions: Personal barriers, such as low educational level, lack of knowledge about human papillomavirus, and difficulties related to work schedule, increased the likelihood of not attending to receive the test report.


REFERENCES

  1. World Health Organization. International Agency for Researchon Cancer. Cancer today. Data visualization toolsfor exploring the global cancer burden in 2020. http://gco.iarc.fr/today/home>

  2. Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Control integraldel cáncer cervicouterino: guía de prácticas esenciales.2ª ed. Washington, DC: OPS, 2016. https://iris.paho.org/bitstream/handle/10665.2/28512/9789275318799_spa.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

  3. Ferreira E, Pereira F, Márquez T, Maria C, da Silva A, CostaS. Cervical cancer: knowledge, attitude and practice onthe prevention examination. Rev Bras Enferm 2019; 72 (3):25-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2017-0645

  4. Moreira C, Bezerra A, Oliveira A, Marques T, Fernandes D.Comparación de la eficacia de intervenciones en la tasade retorno para recibir el laudo citológico vaginal: estudioexperimental aleatorizado controlado. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem2017; 25 (1): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.1337.2857.

  5. Pinho N, Moreira C, Oliveira A, Batista M, da Costa P,Bezerra A. Conocimiento, actitud y práctica sobre laprueba colpocitológica y su relación con la edad femenina.Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 2016; 24 (1): 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.0700.2699

  6. Vasconcelos CTM, Cunha DFF, Coelho CF, Pinheiro AKB,Sawada NO. Factores relacionados al no presentarse a laconsulta para recibir el resultado de la prueba de Papanicolaou.Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 2014; 22 (3): 401-407.https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3132.2430

  7. Ferris DG, Chen J, Isaac A, Braithwaite E, Beideck E, MikailN, et al. Reimbursement Incentives to Improve Adherenceto Follow-Up of Cervical Cancer Cytology Screening Resultsin Peru. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2019; 23 (2): 116-123. doi:10.1097/LGT.0000000000000459

  8. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e informática. Perú EnfermedadesNo Transmisibles y Transmisibles, 2020. Programade Prevención y Control del Cáncer. https://www.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/publicaciones_digitales/Est/Lib1796

  9. Urrutia MT, Poupin L. Women with Cervical Cancer: Perceptionsabout the Papanicolaou Test. Aquichan 2015; 15 (4):499-507. doi: 10.5294/aqui.2015.15.4.5

  10. Matassini Eyzaguirre SM, Luna V. Barreras para el diagnósticoy tratamiento del cáncer de cuello uterino en unhospital público de Lima, Perú: un estudio cualitativo. ActaMed Perú 2020;37(4):463-470. https://doi.org/10.35663/amp.2020.374.1835.

  11. Duarte G. Efectos en el cuidado de la Salud Sexual Reproductivaen la comuna de Puente Alto-Chile, en contextode pandemia por SARS-CoV-2: Estudio descriptivo. OSFPreprints 2020. doi: 10.31219/osf.io/gjbf2

  12. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e informática. Perú EnfermedadesNo Transmisibles y Transmisibles, 2022. Programade Prevención y Control del Cáncer. https://cdn.www.gob.pe/uploads/document/file/4570237/Per%C3%BA%3A%20Enfermedades%20No%20Transmisibles%20y%20Transmisibles%2C%202022.pdf?v=1684338910

  13. Suk R, Hong YR, Rajan SS, Xie Z, Zhu Y, Spencer JC. Assessmentof US Preventive Services Task Force Guideline-Concordant Cervical Cancer Screening Rates and Reasonsfor Underscreening by Age, Race and Ethnicity, SexualOrientation, Rurality, and Insurance, 2005 to 2019. JAMANetw Open 2022; 5 (1): e2143582. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.43582

  14. Bendezu G, Soriano A, Urrunaga D, Venegas G, BenitesV. Asociación entre conocimientos acerca del cáncerde cuello uterino y realizarse una prueba de Papanicolaouen mujeres peruanas. Rev Peru Med Exp SaludPública 2020; 37 (1): 17-24. https://doi.org/10.17843/rpmesp.2020.371.4730

  15. Strelow B, Francis M, Gertner G, Olson R, Abuhadid K, AbdiD, et al. Saturday Pap Smear Clinic: addressing barriers tocervical cancer screening. BMJ Open Qual 2023;12 (3):e002252. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002252

  16. Moreira C, Bezerra A, Oliveira A, Marques T, Fernandes D.Comparación de la eficacia de intervenciones en la tasa deretorno para recibir el laudo citológico vaginal: estudio experimentalaleatorizado controlado. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem2017; 25 (1): 1-8. doi: 10.1590/1518-8345.1337.2857

  17. Shokar NK, Calderon-Mora J, Molokwu J, Byrd T, Alomari A,Mallawaarachchi I, et al. Outcomes of a multicomponentculturally tailored cervical cancer screening interventionamong underserved hispanic women (de casa encasa). Health Promot Pract 2021; 22 (1): 112-121. doi:10.1177/1524839919893309

  18. Fang CY, Ma GX, Handorf EA, Feng Z, Tan Y, Rhee J, MillerSM, et al. Addressing multilevel barriers to cervical cancerscreening in Korean American women: A randomized trialof a community-based intervention. Cancer 2017; 123 (6):1018-1026. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30391

  19. Olaza-Maguiña AF, De la Cruz-Ramirez YM. Barriers to thenon-acceptance of cervical cancer screenings (pap smeartest) in women of childbearing age in a rural area of Peru.Ecancermedicalscience 2019;31(13):901. doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2019.901

  20. León-Maldonado L, Hernández-Ramírez RU, Torres-Ibarra L,Spiegelman D, Sheth SS, Lazcano E, et al. Factors associatedwith receiving results and attending colposcopy in patientswith positive HPV screens in Mexico City. Prev Med Rep2023; 24 (35): 102347. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102347




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com