COMPLIANCE OF UNIVERSITY ACADEMICS TO HEALTH BEHAVIORS AND SCREENING PROGRAMS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

Öz

Screening programs and immunization services have a key role in reducing morbidity and mortality and promoting health. This study aimed to determine the health behaviors of academicians in a university, their participation in screening services appropriate for their age and gender, and related factors. The research was a cross-sectional study, and a stratified sampling method was used. 82.7% (n=197) of the targeted sample size was reached, and the data were collected under observation with a questionnaire. Academicians had better scores on smoking, a balanced diet, and seat belt use than the population, while they had worse scores on physical activity and compliance with medication. One-third of the academicians had regular blood pressure measurements, almost half had regular lipid profile screening, and approximately 60% had regular fasting blood glucose screening. The compliance rate for colon cancer screening was below 5%. One-third of females had regular Pap smears, and this rate was 43.8% for mammography examination. The highest rate of the never administered vaccine was pneumococcal vaccine (95%). Female gender, working in a health-related faculty, presence of chronic disease, and advanced age were determined as factors that had an impact on preventive health behaviors and participation in screening. Academicians had better scores on smoking, balanced diet, and seat belt use than the general population and worse scores on physical activity and compliance with medication. In this study, more than half of the academicians, in general, had behaviors that reflected a healthy lifestyle. Academicians should be supported more for primary prevention, which is essential in improving public health.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Health behavior
• cancer screening
• compliance
• university
• vaccine

Proje Numarası

SAG-C-TUP-120309-0039 protokol nolu proje

BİR ÜNİVERSİTE AKADEMİSYENLERİNİN SAĞLIK DAVRANIŞLARINA VE TARAMA PROGRAMLARINA UYUMU: KESİTSEL BİR ÇALIŞMA

Öz

Tarama programları ve bağışıklama hizmetleri morbidite ve mortaliteyi azaltmanın ve sağlığı geliştirmenin anahtarıdır. Bu araştırmada bir üniversitedeki akademisyenlerinin sağlık davranışlarını, yaş ve cinsiyetlerine uygun tarama hizmetlerine katılımlarını ve ilişkili etkenleri saptamak amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma kesitseldir ve tabakalı örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Hedeflenen örnek büyüklüğünün %82,7’sine (n=197) ulaşılmıştır. Veriler anket ile gözlem altında toplanmıştır. Akademisyenlerin üçte biri düzenli kan basıncı ölçümü, yarısına yakını düzenli lipid profili takibi ve yaklaşık %60’ı düzenli açlık kan şekeri takibi yaptırmaktadır. Kolon kanseri taramasına uyum oranı %5’in altındadır. Kadınların üçte biri düzenli Pap-smear testi yaptırmaktadır; mamografi için bu oran %43,8’dir. Pnömokok aşısı en yüksek oranda hiç yaptırılmayan aşıdır (%95). Kadın olmak, sağlıkla ilişkili bir fakültede çalışıyor olmak, kronik hastalık sahibi olmak, ileri yaşta olmak koruyucu sağlık davranışları ve taramalara katılımı etkileyen olası faktörler olarak saptanmıştır. Akademisyenler sigara içme, dengeli beslenme ve emniyet kemeri kullanımı açısından toplum geneline göre daha iyi, fiziksel hareketlilik ve ilaç tedavisine uyum açısından ise daha kötü değerlere sahiptir. Bu araştırmada genel olarak akademisyenlerin yarısından fazlasının, sağlıklı yaşam biçimini yansıtan davranışları yaptığı görülmektedir. Akademisyenler, toplum sağlığını geliştirmenin önemli bir adımı olan birincil koruma için daha çok desteklenmelidirler.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sağlık davranışı
• kanser tarama
• uyum
• üniversite
• aşı

Destekleyen Kurum

Marmara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinasyon Birimi ( BAPKO) tarafından desteklenmiştir.

Proje Numarası

SAG-C-TUP-120309-0039 protokol nolu proje

Kaynakça

1. 1- Healthy People 2020. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. [cited 2021 Jun 22] Available from: https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/leading-health-indicators/2020-lhi-topics/Clinical-Preventive-Services.
2. 2- WHO. EPHO5: Disease Prevention, Including Early Detection of Illness. [cited 2021 Agu 29] Available from: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Health-systems/public-health-services/policy/the-10-essential-public-health-operations/epho5-disease-prevention,-including-early-detection-of-illness2
3. 3- Adepoju OE, Preston MA, Gonzales G. Health care disparities in the post-affordable care act era. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(5):665–7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302611.
4. 4- Borsky A, Zhan C, Miller T, Ngo-Metzger Q, Bierman AS, Meyers D. Few Americans receive all high-priority, appropriate clinical preventive services. Health Affairs (Project Hope). 2018;37(6): 925-8. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1248.
5. 5- Lantz PM, Evans WD, Mead H, Alvarez C, Stewart L. Knowledge of and attitudes toward evidence-based guidelines for and against clinical preventive services: Results from a national survey. The Milbank Quarterly. 2016;94:51-76. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12181.
6. 6- Song S, White A, Kucik JE. Use of selected recommended clinical preventive services - behavioral risk factor surveillance system, United States, 2018. MMWR. 2021;70(13):461–6. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7013a1.
7. 7- Levine S, Malone E, Lekiachvili A, Briss P. Health care ındustry ınsights: why the use of preventive services ıs still low. Prev Chronic Dis. 2019;16:E30. doi:10.5888/pcd16.180625
8. 8- Aile Hekimliği Uygulamasında Önerilen Periyodik Sağlık Muayeneleri ve Tarama Testleri, Ankara 2015. [cited 2021 Jun 20] Available from: https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/depo/birimler/Toplum_Sagligi_Hizmetleri_ve_Egitim_Db/Dokumanlar/rehberer/psm_2019.pdf

9. 9- Saçıkara Z, Koçoğlu-tanyer D. Kırsal bölgede yaşayan kadınların serviks ve meme kanseri taramalarına katılım ve bilgi durumları . Sürekli Tıp Eğitimi Dergisi. 2021;30 (1):43-52 . doi:10.17942/sted.652657.
10. 10- Sahin MK, Aker S, Arslan HN. Barriers to colorectal cancer screening in a primary care setting in Turkey. J Community Health. 2017;42(1):101–8. doi:10.1007/s10900-016-0235-1.
11. 11- Sözmen K, Unal B, Sakarya S, Dinc G, Yardim N, Keskinkilic B, et al. Determinants of breast and cervical cancer screening uptake among women in Turkey. APJPH. 2016;28(6):528–38. doi:10.1177/1010539516654541.
12. 12- Karadag Arli S, Bakan AB, Aslan G. Distribution of cervical and breast cancer risk factors in women and their screening behaviours. Eur J Cancer Care. 2019;28(2): e12960. doi:10.1111/ecc.12960.
13. 13- Zajacova A, Lawrence EM. The Relationship Between Education and Health: Reducing Disparities Through a Contextual Approach. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018;39:273-89. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044628
14. 14- Lawrence EM. Why Do College Graduates Behave More Healthfully than Those Who Are Less Educated?. Journal of health and social behavior. 2017;58(3):291–306. doi:10.1177/0022146517715671.
15. 15- Brunner-Ziegler S, Rieder A, Stein KV, Koppensteiner R, Hoffmann K, Dorner TE. Predictors of participation in preventive health examinations in Austria. BMC Public Health. 2013; 13:1138. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-1138.
16. 16- Üzümcüoğlu Zihni Y, Bıçaksız P, Öztürk İ, Özkan T. Emniyet kemeri kullanıyor muyuz? Türkiye’de ve İstanbul’da emniyet kemeri kullanım oranları. ll. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Kongresi (CONGIST’19) (18-20 Eylül 2019), İstanbul, Türkiye. [cited 2021 Jun 23] Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/11511/78486
17. 17- Üner S, Balcılar M, Ergüder T. Türkiye Hane halkı Sağlık Araştırması: Bulaşıcı Olmayan Hastalıkların Risk Faktörleri Prevalansı 2017 (STEPS). Dünya Sağlık Örgütü Türkiye Ofisi, Ankara. 2018. [cited 2021 Jun 23] Available from: https://www.who.int/ncds/surveillance/steps/WHO_Turkey_Risk_Factors_A4_TR_19.06.2018.pdf
18. 18- Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TUİK). Türkiye Sağlık Araştırması. 2019. [cited 2021 Jun 24] Available from: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Turkey-Health-Survey-2019-33661
19. 19- Levin-Zamir D, Baron-Epel OB, Cohen V, Elhayany A. The Association of Health Literacy with Health Behavior, Socioeconomic Indicators, and Self-Assessed Health From a National Adult Survey in Israel. J Health Commun. 2016;21(Supp2):61-8. doi:10.1080/10810730.2016.1207115.
20. 20- Svendsen MT, Bak CK, Sørensen K, Pelikan J, Riddersholm SJ, Skals RK, et al. Associations of health literacy with socioeconomic position, health risk behavior, and health status: a large national population-based survey among Danish adults. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):565. doi:10.1186/s12889-020-08498-8.
21. 21-Aranha A, Patel PJ. Health literacy, preventive health screening, and medication adherence behaviors of older African Americans at a PCMH. The Am J Manag Care. 2018; 24(9):428–32.
22. 22- Malih N, Sohrabi MR, Abadi A, Arshi S. Determinants of adherence to diabetes screening in Iranian adults with a positive family history of diabetes. J Prev Med Public Health. 2021;54(3):190-8. https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.20.496
23. 23- Chien SY, Chuang MC, Chen I.P, Yu PH. Primary drivers of willingness to continue to participate in community-based health screening for chronic diseases. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(9):1645 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16091645
24. 24- Chien SY, Chuang MC, Chen IP. Why people do not attend health screenings: factors that ınfluence willingness to participate in health screenings for chronic diseases. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(10):3495. doi:10.3390/ijerph17103495.
25. 25- Matheson GO, Klügl M, Engebretsen L, Bendiksen F, Blair SN, Börjesson M, et al. Prevention and management of non-communicable disease: The IOC consensus statement, Lausanne. Sports Med. 2013;43:1075-88. doi:10.1007/s40279-013-0104-3.
26. 26-Skalamera J, Hummer RA. Educational attainment and the clustering of health-related behavior among U.S. young adults. Preventive medicine. 2016;84:83–9. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.12.011.
27. 27-García-Mayor J, Moreno-Llamas A, la Cruz-Sánchez E. High educational attainment redresses the effect of occupational social class on health-related lifestyle: findings from four Spanish national health surveys. Annals of Epidemiology. 2021;58:29–37. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2021.02.010.
28. 28-Hernandez EM, Margolis R, Hummer RA. Educational and gender differences in health behavior changes after a gateway diagnosis. Journal of aging and health. 2018;30(3):342–64. doi:10.1177/0898264316678756.
29. 29- Zhang C, Fu C, Song Y, Feng R, Wu X, Li Y. Utilization of public health care by people with private health insurance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC public health. 2020;20(1):1153. doi:10.1186/s12889-020-08861-9.
30. 30- Keskinkılıç B, Gültekin M, Karaca AS, Öztürk C, Boztaş G, Karaca MZ, et al. Türkiye Kanser Kontrol Programı. THSK Yayın Komisyonu, Ankara, 2016. [cited 2021 Jul 7] Available from: https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/depo/birimler/kanserdb/yayinlar/Kitaplar/TURKIYE_KANSER_KONTROL_PROGRAMI_2016.pdf