Cargando…

Risk Assessment for Breast Cancer Development and Its Clinical Impact on Screening Performance in Iranian Women

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to estimate the objective and subjective risk and to examine their associations with three forms of breast cancer screening. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted with a sample of 800 women aged 35–85 years from the community setting and outpatient...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nikpour, Maryam, Hajian-Tilaki, Karimollah, Bakhtiari, Afsaneh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6890170/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31819640
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S229585
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to estimate the objective and subjective risk and to examine their associations with three forms of breast cancer screening. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted with a sample of 800 women aged 35–85 years from the community setting and outpatient clinic in Babol, the north of Iran. The demographic, socio-economic characteristics and the risk factor profiles were collected through in-person interview. The health belief model (HBM) and visual analog scales were used to assess the women’s perceived risk of breast cancer. The practice of women regarding breast self-examination (BSE), breast clinical examination (BCE), and mammography were measured. We used the Gail model in estimating 5-year and lifetime risk. The logistic regression model was applied to determine the relationship of calculated and perceived risk on screening behaviors. RESULTS: The mean of estimated 5-year and lifetime risk were 0.89 ±0.89 and 8.87 ±3.84 percent respectively while the perceived personal risk on visual scale perception was much greater than the calculated risk. The high 5-year calculated risk was a predictor of mammography practice but not BSE and BCE; however, after adjusting the subscales of HBM and socio-demographic characteristics, its effect remained significant (adjusted OR=1.97(95% CI: 1.02–3.08)). The perceived risk from HBM in particular self-efficacy (p=0.001) remained positively significant on all forms of screening practice. CONCLUSION: While the perceived risk from HBM scale was meaningful in screening performance, the calculated risk from the Gail model had a clinical impact on mammography behaviors independent of HBM scales.