Comparing Personal Risk Communication with Generic Information on Breast Cancer Screening Attendance: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2, 112 - 120, 30.06.2024

Cihat Üstün Ersan Gürsoy

https://doi.org/10.18521/ktd.1409475

Öz

Objective: This study sought to discern the differential impacts of communicating individualized breast cancer risk versus disseminating generic breast cancer information on women's proclivity towards breast cancer screenings.
Method: A structured experimental design was used, including 300 female volunteers aged between 40-69, who had not previously been diagnosed with breast cancer, in Erzincan. Data collection entailed a face-to-face administration of a 22-item questionnaire complemented by the ASSISTS scale. Participants were randomized into two conditions: one receiving a standardized briefing on breast cancer screening modalities, and the other being apprised of their lifetime risk of breast cancer development based on the modified Gail model.
Results: Post-intervention, 55.8% (n=72) of the risk-informed cohort and 40.5% (n=41) of the generic information cohort expressed a willingness to undergo screening (p=0.022). Notably, the group informed of their personalized risk exhibited a more pronounced uptick in requests for breast self-examination, clinical breast examination, and mammography screening compared to their counterparts.
Conclusion: The communication of personalized breast cancer risk proves to be a more efficacious and time-efficient strategy than generic information dissemination in bolstering screening participation rates.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Breast Neoplasms, Breast Cancer, Mammography, Secondary Prevention, Early Diagnosis of Cancer

Etik Beyan

The study secured ethical approval from the Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University Faculty of Medicine Clinical Research Ethics Committee on October 27, 2022, under the reference number 04/10

Meme Kanseri Taramasına Katılmada Kişisel Risk Bildirimi ile Genel Bilgilendirmenin Etkisinin Karşılaştırılması: Randomize Kontrollü Bir Çalışma

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, bireyselleştirilmiş meme kanseri riski bildirimi ile genel meme kanseri hakkında bilgilendirme yapmanın kadınların kanser taramasına katılım eğilimleri üzerindeki etkilerini anlamayı amaçlamaktadır.
Metod: Bu çalışma, Erzincan ilinde, daha önce meme kanseri teşhisi konmamış 40-69 yaş arasındaki 300 kadın gönüllü üzerinde yapılandırılmış bir deneysel tasarım kullanılmıştır. Veri toplama, 22 maddelik bir anketin yüz yüze uygulanması ve ASSISTS ölçeğinin kullanılması ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Katılımcılar iki gruba ayrılmıştır: bir grup standart meme kanseri tarama yöntemleri hakkında bilgilendirilmiş, diğer grup ise modifiye Gail modeline dayalı olarak ömür boyu meme kanseri geliştirme riskleri hakkında bilgilendirilmiştir.
Bulgular: Müdahaleden sonra, risk bilgilendirilmiş grubun %55.8'i (n=72) ve genel bilgi grubunun %40.5'i (n=41) tarama yaptırmaya istekli olduklarını ifade etmiştir (p=0.022). Özellikle, kişiselleştirilmiş riskleri hakkında bilgilendirilen grup, genel bilgilendirme yapılan gruba kıyasla daha fazla meme kendi kendine muayene, klinik meme muayenesi ve mamografi taraması talebinde bulunmuştur.
Sonuç: Kişiselleştirilmiş meme kanseri riski bildiriminin, genel bilgi verilmesine göre tarama katılım oranlarını artırmada daha etkili ve zaman açısından daha verimli bir strateji olduğu görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Meme Neoplazmları, Meme Kanseri, Mamografi, Sekonder koruma, Kanserin Erken Teşhisi

Kaynakça

• 1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2021;71(3):209-49.
• 2. International Agency for Research on Cancer. World Cancer Day: Breast cancer overtakes lung cancer in terms of number of new cancer cases worldwide. IARC showcases key research projects to address breast cancer 2021 [12.05.2024]. Available from: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/pr294_E.pdf.
• 3. Ginsburg O, Yip CH, Brooks A, Cabanes A, Caleffi M, Dunstan Yataco JA, et al. Breast cancer early detection: A phased approach to implementation. Cancer causes. 2020;126:2379-93.
• 4. Tabár L, Dean PB, Chen THH, Yen AMF, Chen SLS, Fann JCY, et al. The incidence of fatal breast cancer measures the increased effectiveness of therapy in women participating in mammography screening. Cancer. 2019;125(4):515-23.
• 5. T.R. Ministry of Health Turkish Public Health Institution Cancer Department. Türkiye Cancer Control Program 2016 [cited 2023 24 January]. Available from: https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/depo/birimler/kanser-db/yayinlar/Kitaplar/TURKIYE_KANSER_KONTROL_PROGRAMI_2016.pdf.
• 6. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health. Health Statistics Yearbook 2021 [cited 2023 13 April]. Available from: https://dosyasb.saglik.gov.tr/Eklenti/45316,siy2021-turkcepdf.pdf?0.
• 7. Secginli S, Nahcivan NO, Gunes G, Fernandez R. Interventions promoting breast cancer screening among Turkish women with global implications: A systematic review. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing. 2017;14(4):316-23.
• 8. T.R. Ministry of Health. Breast Cancer Prevention, Screening, Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-up Clinical Guide 2020 [cited 2022 December 31]. Available from: https://dosyamerkez.saglik.gov.tr/Eklenti/38131,memekanskr20200720pdf.pdf?0.
• 9. Cohen M. Breast cancer early detection, health beliefs, and cancer worries in randomly selected women with and without a family history of breast cancer. Psycho‐Oncology. 2006;15(10):873-83.
• 10. Taplin S, Anderman C, Grothaus LJM. Breast cancer risk and participation in mammographic screening. 1990;12(2):156.
• 11. Puzhko S, Gagnon J, Simard J, Knoppers BM, Siedlikowski S, Bartlett GJPHR. Health professionals’ perspectives on breast cancer risk stratification: understanding evaluation of risk versus screening for disease. 2019;40:1-19.
• 12. Evans DG, Howell A. Can the breast screening appointment be used to provide risk assessment and prevention advice? Breast cancer research treatment. 2015;17(1):1-9.
• 13. Cintolo-Gonzalez JA, Braun D, Blackford AL, Mazzola E, Acar A, Plichta JK, et al. Breast cancer risk models: a comprehensive overview of existing models, validation, and clinical applications. Breast cancer research treatment. 2017;164(2):263-84.
• 14. Turan Z, Yiğit F. Validity and Reliability Study of the Scale of Factors Affecting Women's Breast Cancer Prevention Behaviors. Kocaeli Tıp Dergisi. 2021;10(3):407-20.
• 15. Khazaee-Pool M, Majlessi F, Montazeri A, Pashaei T, Gholami A, Ponnet K. Development and psychometric testing of a new instrument to measure factors influencing women’s breast cancer prevention behaviors (ASSISTS). BMC women's health. 2016;16:1-13.
• 16. Miller AB, Baines CJ. The role of clinical breast examination and breast self-examination. Preventive Medicine. 2011;53(3):118-20.
• 17. Silva T, Mauad EC, Carvalho AL, Jacobs LA, Shulman LN. Difficulties in implementing an organized screening program for breast cancer in Brazil with emphasis on diagnostic methods. Rural Remote Health. 2013;13(2):1-11.
• 18. Klug SJ, Hetzer M, Blettner M. Screening for breast and cervical cancer in a large German city: participation, motivation and knowledge of risk factors. The European Journal of Public Health. 2005;15(1):70-7.
• 19. Aksoy YE, Turfan EÇ, Sert E, Mermer G. Barriers on Breast Cancer Early Detection Methods. Breast Health. 2015;11:26-30.
• 20. Barbosa YC, Oliveira AGC, Rabêlo PPC, Silva FdS, Santos AMd. Factors associated with lack of mammography: National Health Survey, 2013. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia. 2019;22.
• 21. Viens L, Perin D, Senkomago V, Neri A, Saraiya M. Questions about cervical and breast cancer screening knowledge, practice, and outcomes: a review of demographic and health surveys. Journal of Women's Health. 2017;26(5):403-12.
• 22. Mascara M, Constantinou C. Global perceptions of women on breast cancer and barriers to screening. Current Oncology Reports. 2021;23:1-9.
• 23. Todd A, Stuifbergen A. Breast cancer screening barriers and disability. Rehabilitation Nursing. 2012;37(2):74-9.
• 24. Usher-Smith JA, Hindmarch S, French DP, Tischkowitz M, Moorthie S, Walter FM, et al. Proactive breast cancer risk assessment in primary care: a review based on the principles of screening. British Journal of Cancer. 2023:1-11.