Literature DB >> 8569291

Barriers to cancer screening.

R J Womeodu1, J E Bailey.   

Abstract

Many barriers to cancer screening have been summarized and discussed. Barriers have been documented in all patient populations, but some groups such as ethnic minorities and the elderly face unique barriers. The barriers to cancer screening, are multifactorial, but much of the responsibility for change must lie with health care providers and the health care delivery industry. This is not to free the patient of all responsibility, but some significant barriers are beyond their direct control. Take, for example, socioeconomic status, disease knowledge, and culturally related perceptions and myths about cancer detection and treatment. The health care industry must do a better job identifying and overcoming these barriers. The significant effects of provider counseling and advice must not be underestimated. Patients must first be advised, and then further actions must be taken if they reject the screening advice. Did they refuse adherence to recommendations because they do not view themselves as susceptible, because of overwhelming personal barriers, or because of a fatalistic attitude toward cancer detection and treatment? If that is the case, physicians and health care institutions must attempt to change perceptions, educate, and personalize the message so that patients accept their disease susceptibility [table: see text]. Multiple patient and provider risk factors have been identified that can be used to target patients particularly at high risk for inadequate cancer screening and providers at high risk for performing inadequate screening. Research has clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of interventions to improve tracking of patient and physician compliance with screening recommendations. Further research is needed to show the impact of managed-care penetration and payer status on screening efforts, and incentive schemes need to be tested that reward institutions and third-party payers who develop uniform standards and procedures for cancer screening. The greatest responsibility lies with medical and health care institutions and those who determine the priorities of these institutions. Patient and physician barriers to mass cancer screening can be addressed by institutional support. If the quality of care delivered by providers, group practices, managed-care organizations, and HMOs is assessed with priority given to the regularity and consistency with which basic screening procedures are performed, cancer screening will undoubtedly receive greater attention in the clinic. Medical institutions must collaborate to develop standards for cancer screening with attention to the cost-effectiveness of various screening techniques to determine how limited resources can best be spent in cancer control. Such efforts should keep in mind "that a very small change implemented over a broad population may have a greater effect in absolute numbers than a large level of change applied in a small segment of the population."

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8569291     DOI: 10.1016/s0025-7125(05)70430-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Clin North Am        ISSN: 0025-7125            Impact factor:   5.456


  13 in total

1.  Cancer perceptions of South African mothers and daughters: implications for health promotion programs.

Authors:  Maghboeba Mosavel; Christian Simon; Rashid Ahmed
Journal:  Health Care Women Int       Date:  2010-09

2.  Formative Evaluation to Assess Communication Technology Access and Health Communication Preferences of Alaska Native People.

Authors:  Renee F Robinson; Denise A Dillard; Vanessa Y Hiratsuka; Julia J Smith; Steve Tierney; Jaedon P Avey; Dedra S Buchwald
Journal:  Int J Indig Health       Date:  2015

3.  Assessment of characteristics of capacity among breast cancer screening facilities.

Authors:  Vicki L Collie-Akers; Cynthia Warrick; Li Zhu; Misha Granado; Kymeiria Ingram
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2012-06

4.  Cervical and colorectal cancer screening prevalence before and after Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion.

Authors:  Nathalie Huguet; Heather Angier; Rebecca Rdesinski; Megan Hoopes; Miguel Marino; Heather Holderness; Jennifer E DeVoe
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2019-05-08       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  Men's theories about benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer following a benign prostatic hyperplasia decision aid.

Authors:  Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Chrystal Price; David R Rovner; Karen Kelly-Blake; Janet Lillie; Celia Wills; Vence L Bonham
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Barriers to oral cancer screening: a focus group study of rural Black American adults.

Authors:  Jennifer L Howell; James A Shepperd; Henrietta Logan
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2012-08-27       Impact factor: 3.894

7.  Men's interpretations of graphical information in a videotape decision aid.

Authors:  Jan Pylar; Celia E Wills; Janet Lillie; David R Rovner; Karen Kelly-Blake; Margaret Holmes-Rovner
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Improved survival of patients with colon cancer detected by screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Armin Wiegering; Sabine Ackermann; Johannes Riegel; Ulrich A Dietz; Oliver Götze; Christoph-Thomas Germer; Ingo Klein
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Associations of demographic variables and the Health Belief Model constructs with Pap smear screening among urban women in Botswana.

Authors:  Ditsapelo M McFarland
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2013-10-24

10.  Mexican immigrant male knowledge and support toward breast and cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Heike Thiel de Bocanegra; Chau Trinh-Shevrin; Angelica P Herrera; Francesca Gany
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2008-06-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.