ATTITUDE, BEHAVIOUR AND AWARENESS OF TURKISH WOMEN CONCERNING BREAST CANCER

Yıl 2002, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2, 97 - 102, 03.12.2016

Hülya Maraş Engin Karagöz Bilge Aktaş Esra Olgun Çağrı Kalaça Bahadır Güllüoğlu

Öz

Objective: Over half a million women develop breast cancer every year. Despite rising incidence, survival rates can be increased by public health efforts to promote routine self- examination and regular mammograms in order to detect cancer at an early stage.
The objective of this study is to determine women’s awareness, practice and attitudes towards breast cancer and to be a guide for education programmes aimed at making women more informed and enabling them to act with more knowledge.
Method: Questionnaires, composed of 26 questions, were conducted among 375 women living in different areas of Istanbul. Each completed questionnaire was analysed and graded according to participant’s level of information concerning breast cancer.
Results: The level of information has a direct relationship with age, education and family income. Those with a good level of information
were found to be: 57,6% of women above 51 years of age; 60% of all women who stated an income of above one billion TL, and; 62,2% of women graduated from a university.
Conclusion: Health education on breast cancer should be provided especially to those with a poor level of information.
Key Words: Breast cancer, Awareness, Attitude, Practice.

Kaynakça

• Parker SL, Tong T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics. Cancer J Clin I997;47:68.
• Parkin DM, Laara E, Muir CS. Estimates of the worldwide frequency of sixteen major cancers in I980.lnt J Cancer 1988; 41:184-197.
• Chu KC, Tarone RE, Rcssler LG, et al. Recent trents in US. Breast cancer incidence, survival
• Hülya Maraş, et al
• and mortality rates. J Hat! Cancer Inst 1996;88:1571-1579.
• Fidaner C, Eser SY, Parkin DM. Incidence of breast cancer in Izmir in 1993-1994: first results from Izmir Cancer Registry. Eur J Cancer 2001 ; 37: 83-92.
• Hulka CA, Slanetz PJ, Flalpern EF et at. Patient's opinion of mammography screening services: Immediate result versus delayed results due to interpretations by two observers. Am Radiol 1997; 168:1085-1089.
• Ries LQ, Flankey BF, Miller BA, Hartman AM, Edwards BE. Cancer Statistics Review 1973- 88. Washington DC: national Cancer Institute. niH 1991; 91:2789.
• Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas B, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: A national mammography screening and outcomes database. Am J Radiol 1997; 169:1001-1008.
• Barratt A. Cockburn J, Lowe J, Paul C, Perkins J, Redman S. Report on the 1996 Breast Health Survey, nilMRC national Breast Cancer Centre, Sydney, 1997.
• Morrow M. Breast Cancer: who and why? In: Jordan VC, ed. Tamoxifen for the treatment and prevention of breast cancer. Melville, new York: PRR, 1999:187-205.
• Relsley Jl. Breast cancer epidemiologic summary and future directions. Epidemiol Rev 1993; 26:915-23.
• Wiseman R A. Breast cancer hypothesis: a single cause for the majority of cases. J Epidemiol Community Health 2000; 54: 851- 858.
• Greenwald P, nasca PC, Lawrence CE, et al. Estimated particif breast self-examination and routine physician exam on breast cancer mortality, n Engl J Med 1978; 299:271-273.
• Ustaoglu C. Meme hastalıklarında görüntüleme yöntemleri ve İsparta yöresi meme kanseri tarama sonuçları. Uzmanlık tezi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Radyodiagnostik Anabilim Dalı, İsparta: 2000.
• Grady RE, Lemkau JP, McVay JM, Reisine ST. The importance of physician encouragement in breast cancer screening of older women. Prev Med 1992; 21: 766-780.
• Fox S/4, Stein JA. The effect of physician- patient communication on mammography utilization by different ethnic groups. Med Care (Phila.) 1991; 29: 1065-1082.
• Friedman LC, fieff HE, Webb JA, Latham CR. Age-related differences in mammography use and in breast cancer knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. J Cancer Educ 1998; 13: 26-
• McCaul RD, Branstetter AD, Schroeder DM, Glasgow RE. What is the relationship between breast cancer risk and mammography screening? A mcta-analytic review. Health Psychol 1996; 15: 423-429.