Health Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Cancer Screenings Among Individuals Attending Family Health Centers: A Cross-Sectional Research

Öz

Aim: This study aimed to investigate the effect of individuals’ health perceptions on their attitudes toward cancer screening and to examine the relationship between these two variables.

Method: We implemented a descriptive, cross-sectional, and correlational design. The sample consisted of 351 adults who applied to a family health center in Muğla, Turkey, between January and August 2025. Data were collected using a Personal Information Form, the Health Perception Scale, and the Attitude Scale for Cancer Screening. Statistical analyses included descriptive tests, independent samples t-tests, Pearson correlation, and regression analysis.

Results: The mean age of participants was 43.4±13.9 years, and 60.1% had never undergone cancer screening. The average scores were 38.17±8.21 on the Health Perception Scale and 74.64±15.89 on the Attitude Scale for Cancer Screening. A significant positive correlation was found between health perception and attitudes toward cancer screening (r=0.350, p<0.001). Regression analysis demonstrated that health perception explained 12.3% of the variance in screening attitudes. Participants with knowledge about cancer or screening methods had significantly higher health perception scores (p<0.05). No significant differences were observed in screening attitudes by gender, age, or chronic disease status.

Conclusion: The findings indicate that health perception is a key determinant of attitudes toward cancer screening. Interventions that strengthen health literacy, enhance awareness, and reduce psychosocial barriers could increase participation in screening programs. Educational initiatives and support interventions delivered through family health centers may play an essential role in promoting early detection and improving community health outcomes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Health perception
• cancer screening
• attitude
• family health center
• nursing

Etik Beyan

The study was conducted with the approval of the Non-Interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Istanbul Aydın University (Date: December 25, 2024; Decision No: 136/2024). During data collection, personally identifiable information such as names and surnames was not recorded, and all data were analyzed anonymously. The research was carried out in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the ‘Declaration of Helsinki.

Teşekkür

Our sincere thanks go to the volunteers who participated in this research.

Aile Sağlığı Merkezine Başvuran Bireylerin Sağlık Algıları ve Kanser Taramalarına Yönelik Tutumları

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırma, bireylerin sağlık algılarının kanser taramalarına yönelik tutumları üzerindeki etkisini ve bu iki değişken arasındaki ilişkinin belirlenmesi amacıyla yapılmıştır.

Yöntem: Tanımlayıcı, kesitsel ve ilişki arayıcı tipteki araştırma Ocak–Ağustos 2025 tarihleri arasında Muğla’da bir aile sağlığı merkezine başvuran 351 kişi ile yürütülmüştür. Veriler, Kişisel Bilgi Formu, Sağlık Algısı Ölçeği ve Kanser Taramasına Yönelik Tutum Ölçeği kullanılarak toplanmıştır.

Bulgular: Katılımcıların yaş ortalaması 43,42±13,90’dır. Katılımcıların %60,1’i daha önce hiç kanser taraması yaptırmamıştır. Sağlık algısı ve kanser taramasına yönelik tutum arasında pozitif yönlü anlamlı bir ilişki saptanmıştır (r=0,350; p <0,001). Regresyon analizine göre sağlık algısı, tutum puanlarındaki varyansın %12,3’ünü açıklamaktadır. Kanser konusunda bilgi sahibi olan bireylerin sağlık algısı puanları anlamlı düzeyde daha yüksektir (p=0,021).

Sonuç: Bulgular, sağlık algısının kanser taramasına yönelik tutumları olumlu yönde etkilediğini göstermektedir. Aile sağlığı merkezlerinde uygulanacak eğitim programları, farkındalık çalışmaları ve psikososyal destek müdahaleleri, kanser tarama programlarına katılımı artırmada önemli katkı sağlayabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sağlık algısı
• kanser taraması
• tutum
• aile sağlığı merkezi
• hemşirelik

Etik Beyan

Çalışma, İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi Girişimsel Olmayan Klinik Araştırmalar Etik Kurulu'nun 25 Aralık 2024 tarihli ve 136/2024 sayılı onayı ile yürütülmüştür. Veri toplama sürecinde ad, soyad gibi kişisel bilgiler kayıt altına alınmamış, tüm veriler anonim olarak analiz edilmiştir. Kişilerden Bilgilendirilmiş Olur Formu ile yazılı ve sözlü izin alınmıştır. Araştırma, Helsinki Bildirgesi'nde belirtilen etik ilkelere uygun olarak yürütülmüştür.

Teşekkür

Bu araştırmaya katılan gönüllülere içten teşekkürlerimizi sunarız.

Kaynakça

1. 1. Grassi L, Caruso R, Sabato S, Massarenti S, Nanni MG. Psychosocial screening and assessment in oncology and palliative care settings. Front Psychol. 2015;7(5):1485. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01485.
2. 2. Duffy SW, Vulkan D, Cuckle H, et al. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality (UK Age trial): Final results of a randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(9):1165–72. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30398-3.
3. 3. Draeger DL, Sievert KD, Hakenberg OW. Psychosocial distress in bladder cancer stratified by gender, age, treatment, and tumour stage. Urol Int. 2018;101(1):31–7. doi:10.1159/000489502.
4. 4. Goulart BHL, Bensink ME, Mummy DG, Ramsey SD. Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: Costs, national expenditures, and cost-effectiveness. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2012;10(2):267–75. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2012.0023.
5. 5. Douma LN, Uiters E, Timmermans DRM. Why are the public so positive about colorectal cancer screening? BMC Public Health. 2018 Dec 30;18(1):1212. doi:10.1186/s12889-018-6106-1.
6. 6. Long KA, Pariseau EM, Muriel AC, et al. Psychosocial screening for siblings of children with cancer: Barriers and preferences. Clin Pract Pediatr Psychol. 2017;5(4):364–75. doi:10.1037/cpp0000219.
7. 7. Benavidez GA, Zgodic A, Zahnd WE, Eberth JM. Disparities in meeting USPSTF breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening guidelines among women in the United States. Prev Chronic Dis. 2021;15(18):200315. doi:10.5888/pcd18.200315.
8. 8. Bogaarts MPJ, Den Oudsten BL, Roukema JA, Van Riel JMGH, Beerepoot L V, De Vries J. Development of the psychosocial distress questionnaire—breast cancer (pdq-bc): A breast cancer-specific screening instrument for psychosocial problems. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2011;19(10):1485–93. doi:10.1007/s00520-010-0968-9.

9. 9. Kendall J, Glaze K, Oakland S, Hansen J, Parry C. What do 1281 distress screeners tell us about cancer patients in a community cancer center? Psychooncology. 2011;20(6):594–600. doi:10.1002/pon.1907.
10. 10. Le D, Hong A, Azor Hui SK, Rimal RN, Juon HS. Assessment of hepatitis b virus screening behaviors among asian-americans through the lens of social cognitive theory. Calif J Health Promot. 2021;19(1):76–83. doi:10.32398/cjhp.v19i1.2652.
11. 11. Asare M, Owusu-Sekyere E, Elizondo A, Benavidez GA. Exploring cervical cancer screening uptake among women in the United States: Impact of social determinants of health and psychosocial determinants. Behav Sci (Basel). 2024;14(9):811. doi:10.20944/preprints202408.0584.v1.
12. 12. Kazak AE, Brier M, Alderfer MA, et al. Screening for psychosocial risk in pediatric cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2012 Nov 10;59(5):822–7. doi:10.1002/pbc.24166.
13. 13. Bonney A, Brodersen J, Siersma V, et al. Validation of the psychosocial consequences of screening in lung cancer questionnaire in the international lung screen trial Australian cohort. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2024 Jan 25;22(1):10. doi:10.1186/s12955-023-02225-8.
14. 14. Deatrick JA, Kazak AE, Scialla MA, et al. Advancing health equity in pediatric cancer through implementation of universal family psychosocial risk screening. Psychooncology. 2022;31(9):1483–90. doi:10.1002/pon.5978.
15. 15. Sidabutar S, Martini S, Wahyuni CU. Analysis of factors affecting women of childbearing age to screen using visual ınspection with acetic acid. Osong Public Health Res Perspect. 2017;8(1):61–4. doi:10.24171/j.phrp.2017.8.1.08.
16. 16. Scialla MA, Canter KS, Chen FF, et al. Implementing the psychosocial standards in pediatric cancer: Current staffing and services available. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2017;64(11). doi:10.1002/pbc.26634.
17. 17. Lazenby M, Tan H, Pasacreta N, Ercolano E, McCorkle R. The five steps of comprehensive psychosocial distress screening. Curr Oncol Rep. 2015;17(5):22. doi:10.1007/s11912-015-0447-z.
18. 18. Yang YL, Liu L, Li MY, Shi M, Wang L. Psychological disorders and psychosocial resources of patients with newly diagnosed bladder and kidney cancer: A cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0155607. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155607.
19. 19. Looijmans M, van Manen AS, Traa MJ, Kloover JS, Kessels BLJ, de Vries J. Psychosocial consequences of diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer and evaluation of the need for a lung cancer specific instrument using focus group methodology. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2018;26(12):4177–85. doi:10.1007/s00520-018-4291-1.
20. 20. Cruz-Castillo AB, Hernández-Valero MA, Hovick SR, Campuzano-González ME, Karam-Calderón MA, Bustamante-Montes LP. A study on the knowledge, perception, and use of breast cancer screening methods and quality of care among women from central Mexico. Journal of Cancer Education. 2015;30(3):453–9. doi:10.1007/s13187-014-0722-y.
21. 21. Yirsaw AN, Tefera M, Bogale EK, Anagaw TF, Tiruneh MG, Fenta ET, et al. Applying the Health Belief Model to cervical cancer screening uptake among women in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2024;24(1):1294. doi:10.1186/s12885-024-13055-2.
22. 22. Yıldırım Öztürk EN, Uyar M, Şahin TK. Development of an Attitude Scale for Cancer Screening. Turkish Journal of Oncology. 2020;4(35):394–404. doi:10.5505/tjo.2020.2341.
23. 23. Diamond JJ, Becker JA, Arenson CA, Chambers C V., Rosenthal MP. Development of a scale to measure adults’ perceptions of health: Preliminary findings. J Community Psychol. 2007;35(5):557–61. doi:10.1002/jcop.20164.
24. 24. Kadıoğlu H, Yıldız A. Validity and reliability of Turkish version of Perception of Health Scale. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences. 2012;32(1):47–53. doi:10.5336/medsci.2010-21761.
25. 25. Hutton G, Li SJ, Quaife SL, Brentnall A, Cookson J, Jenkins J, et al. Understanding barriers to breast screening: An online survey of non-attenders as part of a service evaluation in the breast screening programme in England. BMC Public Health. 2025;25(1):2509. doi:10.1186/s12889-025-23691-3.
26. 26. Sung B, O’Driscoll F, Gregory A, Grailey K, Franklin H, Poon S, et al. Identifying barriers to outpatient appointment attendance in patient groups at risk of inequity: A mixed methods study in a London NHS trust. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024;24(1):554. doi:10.1186/s12913-024-10947-8.
27. 27. Calderon C, Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ, Sorribes E, Rodríguez-González A, Obispo BM, et al. Measurement properties of the Spanish version of the brief resilient coping scale (BRCS) in cancer patients. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology. 2022;22(3):100313. doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2022.100313.