Literature DB >> 33786479

Breast Cancer Risk Perception and Mammography Screening Behavior of Women in Northeast Brazil.

Saionara Açucena Vieira Alves1, Mathias Weller1.   

Abstract

Background: Previous studies suggest that education and income affect Brazilian women's breast cancer prevention behavior. The present study focused on the impact of perceived and estimated risk on mammography screening (MS) behavior. Materials and
Methods: Information regarding socioeconomic variables and risk perception was obtained from 396 healthy women aged 40-79 years. Perceived comparative risk was measured on a seven-point Likert scale. A Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool of 5-year risk to develop breast cancer was used to determine objective risk. Estimated comparative risk was determined as categories of perceived risk relative to the objective risk. Regression analysis was applied to determine odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals (95% CIs) of variables.
Results: Asked about the potential of MS to lower risk of death because of breast cancer, 215 (54.29%) responded that it does not lower risk. Women with low perceived comparative risk had a twofold (OR = 0.493; 95% CI: 0.24-1.00) decreased chance to participate in MS annually, compared with women with high-perceived comparative risk (p = 0.020). Women without family history had a 7.6-fold (OR = 0.132; 95% CI: 0.07-0.25) decreased chance of having a high-perceived comparative risk (p = 0.000). If compared with underestimation, the overestimation and accurate estimation of comparative risk tended to be associated with a decreased chance of MS attendance (p = 0.017). Regression modeling indicated that low educational level, no occupation, and no family history decreased the chance of women having MS (p = 0.040; p = 0.010; p = 0.022). Conclusions: Risk perception depended on family history. Present data did not indicate that overestimation, or accurate estimation of comparative risk, increased chance of MS attendance. Educational level, occupation status, and family history, instead, determined MS performance. © Saionara Açucena Vieira Alves and Mathias Weller 2020; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; mammography screening behavior; perceived risk

Year:  2020        PMID: 33786479      PMCID: PMC7784808          DOI: 10.1089/whr.2019.0026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle)        ISSN: 2688-4844


  33 in total

1.  Evaluation of the Relationship Between Family History of Breast Cancer and Risk Perception and Impacts on Repetition of Mammography.

Authors:  Sahar Khoshravesh; Parvaneh Taymoori; Daem Roshani
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2016

2.  Introduction of an organised programme and social inequalities in mammography screening: A 22-year population-based study in Geneva, Switzerland.

Authors:  José Luis Sandoval; Jean-Marc Theler; Stéphane Cullati; Christine Bouchardy; Orly Manor; Jean-Michel Gaspoz; Idris Guessous
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 4.018

3.  [Breast cancer's secondary prevention and associated factors].

Authors:  Marcelo Leal Sclowitz; Ana Maria Baptista Menezes; Denise Petrucci Gigante; Sérgio Tessaro
Journal:  Rev Saude Publica       Date:  2005-06-30       Impact factor: 2.106

4.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

Authors:  M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1989-12-20       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Factors associated with mammography adherence among married Chinese women in Yanbian, China.

Authors:  Moonhee Gang; Jong Im Kim; Kyong Ok Oh; Chun Yu Li; Youngshin Song
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2013

6.  Family history of cancer and its association with breast cancer risk perception and repeat mammography.

Authors:  Gillian Haber; Nasar U Ahmed; Vukosava Pekovic
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2012-10-18       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Perceived risk of breast cancer among Latinas attending community clinics: risk comprehension and relationship with mammography adherence.

Authors:  Kristi D Graves; Elmer Huerta; Jennifer Cullen; Elizabeth Kaufman; Vanessa Sheppard; George Luta; Claudine Isaacs; Marc D Schwartz; Jeanne Mandelblatt
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 2.506

8.  Perceived versus objective breast cancer risk in diverse women.

Authors:  Julia Fehniger; Jennifer Livaudais-Toman; Leah Karliner; Karla Kerlikowske; Jeffrey A Tice; Jessica Quinn; Elissa Ozanne; Celia P Kaplan
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2013-12-28       Impact factor: 2.681

9.  Breast cancer risk feedback to women in the UK NHS breast screening population.

Authors:  D Gareth R Evans; Louise S Donnelly; Elaine F Harkness; Susan M Astley; Paula Stavrinos; Sarah Dawe; Donna Watterson; Lynne Fox; Jamie C Sergeant; Sarah Ingham; Michelle N Harvie; Mary Wilson; Ursula Beetles; Iain Buchan; Adam R Brentnall; David P French; Jack Cuzick; Anthony Howell
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Breast cancer screening: updated recommendations of the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Brazilian Breast Disease Society, and Brazilian Federation of Gynecological and Obstetrical Associations.

Authors:  Linei Augusta Brolini Dellê Urban; Luciano Fernandes Chala; Selma di Pace Bauab; Marcela Brisighelli Schaefer; Radiá Pereira Dos Santos; Norma Medicis de Albuquerque Maranhão; Ana Lucia Kefalas; José Michel Kalaf; Carlos Alberto Pecci Ferreira; Ellyete de Oliveira Canella; João Emílio Peixoto; Heverton Leal Ernesto de Amorim; Helio Sebastião Amâncio de Camargo Junior
Journal:  Radiol Bras       Date:  2017 Jul-Aug
View more
  5 in total

1.  Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on breast cancer screening and detection of high-risk mammographic findings.

Authors:  Nino José Wilson Moterani Júnior; Vinicius César Moterani; Laura Bresciani Bento Gonçalves Moterani; Franklin Fernandes Pimentel; Francisco José Candido Dos Reis
Journal:  Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992)       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 1.712

2.  Understanding the relationship between illness perceptions of breast cancer and perceived risk in a sample of U.A.E. female university students: the role of comparative risk.

Authors:  Maria J Figueiras; David Dias Neto; João Marôco
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 2.742

3.  Shorter delay to treatment by integrated diagnostic services and NGO-provided support among breast cancer patients in two Brazilian referral centres.

Authors:  Lorena Sofia Dos Santos Andrade; Tácila Thamires De Melo Santos; Milena Edite Case de Oliveira; Kedma Anne Lima Gomes; Adriana Raquel Araújo Pereira Soares; Tiago Almeida de Oliveira; Mathias Weller
Journal:  J Public Health Res       Date:  2021-03-10

Review 4.  Factors promoting breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screenings participation: A systematic review.

Authors:  Federica Vallone; Daniela Lemmo; Maria Luisa Martino; Anna Rosa Donizzetti; Maria Francesca Freda; Francesco Palumbo; Elvira Lorenzo; Angelo D'Argenzio; Daniela Caso
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2022-07-12       Impact factor: 3.955

5.  How Do Healthy Women Perceive the Risk of Breast Cancer? The Role of Illness Perceptions and Compared Risk between Portugal and the U.A.E.

Authors:  Maria J Figueiras; David Dias Neto; Joao Marôco; Catarina Carmo
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-10-09       Impact factor: 4.614

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.