CHARACTERIZATION OF USERS OF SCREENING AND DIAGNOSTIC MASTOGRAPHY
Barra lateral del artículo
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
Introduction: The incidence of breast cancer has increased and there are areas aimed at timely diagnosis and intervention, identifying the screening capacity of the Mexican healthcare system, which is the main area of opportunity. When patients are informed, anxiety decreases and their psychological state improves. Objective: Explore the characterization of users of screening and diagnostic mammography for breast cancer, in the private healthcare area of Mexico. Methods: Data from 150 women were collected in a spreadsheet and analyzed in Stata. Univariate analysis for continuous variables and relative frequencies for qualitative variables were used. The relationship between quantitative variables was explored using scatter plots. Results: The survey found that women scheduled for mammograms, although they have moderate concerns. This shows a strong link between their level of knowledge about the procedure and their concern. Personal and medical characteristics did not significantly affect this concern. Conclusions: Patients with more information about mammography had a lower level of concern.
Keywords: breast cancer, information, mammography, autonomy
Descargas
Detalles del artículo
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.
Citas
Unger-Saldaña K, Fitch-Picos K, Villarreal-Garza C. Breast Cancer Diagnostic Delays Among Young Mexican Women Are Associated with a Lack of Suspicion by Health Care Providers at First Presentation. J Glob Oncol. 2019;5: 1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JGO.19.00093
Reynoso-Noverón N, Torres-Domínguez JA. Epidemiología del cáncer en México: carga global y proyecciones 2000-2020. Rev Latinoam Med Conduct, 2017;8(1):9-15. Disponible: http://www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/rlmc/article/view/65111
Organización Mundial de la Salud OMS. Cáncer de mama: prevención y control. Disponible en: http://www.who.int/topics/cancer/breastcancer/es/
Castrazana Campos MDR. Geografía del cáncer de mama en México. Investigaciones Geográficas. Boletín del Instituto de Geografía, 2017;93:140-157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14350/rig.56879
Villarreal-Garza C, Castro-Sánchez A, Platas A, Miaja M, Mohar-Betancourt A, Barragan-Carrillo R, Matus-Santos J. Joven & Fuerte: Program for young women with breast cancer in Mexico—Initial results. Rev Invest Clin, 2017;69(4), 223-228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24875/RIC.17002280
Lara Tamburrino MDC, Olmedo Zorrilla Á. Detección temprana y diagnóstico del cáncer mamario. Rev Fac Med Univ Nac Auton Mex, 2011;54(1):04-17. Disponible en: https://www.medigraphic.com/cgi-bin/new/resumen.cgi?IDARTICULO=29243
Secretaría de Salud. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-041-SSA2-2011, Para la prevención, diagnóstico, tratamiento, control y vigilancia epidemiológica del cáncer de mama. (NOM-041-SSA2-2011). 2011. Disponible en: http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5167893&fecha=19/11/2010
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía [INEGI]. Estadísticas a propósito del día internacional contra el cáncer de mama (19 de octubre). Sala de prensa 16 de octubre de 2014. Disponible en: https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/saladeprensa/aproposito/2014/mama0.pdf
Unger-Saldaña K, Ventosa-Santaulària D, Miranda A, Verduzco-Bustos G. Barriers and Explanatory Mechanisms of Delays in the Patient and Diagnosis Intervals of Care for Breast Cancer in Mexico. Oncologist, 2018;23(4):440-453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0431
Rivera-Franco MM, Leon-Rodriguez E. Delays in breast cancer detection and treatment in developing countries. Breast Cancer: Basic Clin. Res. 2018;12, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1178223417752677
Barratt A, Howard K, Irwig L, Salkeld G, Houssami N. Model of outcomes of screening mammography: information to support informed choices. BMJ. 2005; 330 (7497): 936. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38398.469479.8F
Pedraza HMP, Collazos HAG. La comunicación del diagnóstico de cáncer como práctica saludable para pacientes y profesionales de la salud. Revista Cuidarte, 2015; 6 (1): 964-969. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15649/cuidarte.v6i1.160
Domenighetti G, D'Avanzo B, Egger M, et al. Women's perception of the benefits of mammography screening: population-based survey in four countries. Int J Epidemiol. 2003; 32 (5): 816-821. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyg257
Unger-Saldaña K, Cedano Guadiamos M, Burga Vega AM, Anderson BO, Romanoff A. Delays to diagnosis and barriers to care for breast cancer in Mexico and Peru: a cross sectional study. Lancet Glob Health, 2020; 8, S16. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/s2214-109x(20)30157-1
Slaytor EK, Ward JE. How risks of breast cancer and benefits of screening are communicated to women: analysis of 58 pamphlets. BMJ. 1998;317(7153):263-264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7153.263
Clark MA, Rakowski W, Ehrich B, et al. The effect of a stage-matched and tailored intervention on repeat mammography (1). Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(1):1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00406-8
Sarfati D, Howden-Chapman P, Woodward A, Salmond C. Does the frame affect the picture? A study into how attitudes to screening for cancer are affected by the way benefits are expressed. J Med Screen. 1998;5(3):137-140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jms.5.3.137
Basagoiti I, Casado S. El papel de la información en el empoderamiento del paciente. Viure en salut. 2014. 10-11.
Skinner CS, Arfken CL, Sykes RK. Knowledge, perceptions, and mammography stage of adoption among older urban women. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14(1):54-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(97)00008-1
Basagoiti I, Traver M, Traver V. Alfabetización en salud. De la información a la acción. 2012; Valencia: ITACA/TSB.
Naipe Delgado MC, Estopiñán García M, Martínez Abreu J. La comunicación en el primer nivel de atención de salud. Revista Médica Electrónica, 2016;38(2):261-269. Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1684-18242016000200014
Asociación Médica Mundial. Revisión de la Declaración de Helsinki de la AMM – Principios éticos para las investigaciones médicas en seres humanos. WMA, 2017. Disponible en: https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-helsinki-de-la-amm-principios-eticos-para-las-investigaciones-medicas-en-seres-humanos/
Andreu Y, Galdón MJ, Durá E, García V. Participación en cribados mamográficos y creencias de salud: una perspectiva de proceso. Psicooncología, 2007. Disponible en: https://www.seom.org/seomcms/images/stories/recursos/sociosyprofs/documentacion/psicooncologia/vol4_numero2_3/participacion.pdf
Asociación Médica Mundial. Revisión de la Declaración de Helsinki de la AMM – Principios éticos para las investigaciones médicas en seres humanos. WMA, 2017. Disponible en: https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-helsinki-de-la-amm-principios-eticos-para-las-investigaciones-medicas-en-seres-humanos/
García B. Humanización de la Medicina. Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Bioética. Disponible en: http://www.bioeticaorg.ec/artículos/articulo_humanizacion.htm
Lipkus IM, Rimer BK, Halabi S, Strigo TS. Can tailored interventions increase mammography use among HMO women?. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18(1):1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(99)00106-3
Rimer BK, Halabi S, Sugg Skinner C, et al. Effects of a mammography decision-making intervention at 12 and 24 months. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(4):247-257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(02)00417-8
Rakowski W, Ehrich B, Goldstein MG, et al. Increasing mammography among women aged 40-74 by use of a stage-matched, tailored intervention. Prev Med. 1998;27(5 Pt 1):748-756. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.1998.0354
Musgrove P. Reflexiones sobre la demanda por salud en América Latina. Cuad Econ, 1985;22(66):293–305. Disponible en: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23830227.
Gray JA, Patnick J, Blanks RG. Maximising benefit and minimising harm of screening. BMJ. 2008;336(7642):480-483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39470.643218.94