Premium
Can mobile units improve the strategies for cervical cancer prevention?
Author(s) -
Mauad Edmundo Carvalho,
Nicolau Sérgio Mancini,
Gomes Uilho A.,
da Costa Vieira René Aloísio,
de Castro Mattos Jacó Saraiva,
LongattoFilho Adhemar,
Baracat Edmund C.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
diagnostic cytopathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.417
H-Index - 65
eISSN - 1097-0339
pISSN - 8755-1039
DOI - 10.1002/dc.21287
Subject(s) - medicine , cervical cancer , cervical cancer screening , public health , family medicine , health care , gynecology , cancer , environmental health , gerontology , nursing , economic growth , economics
Cervical cancer is a serious public health problem in women in developing countries because of absence or ineffectiveness of screening programs. Several biases to access medical care and inequity of public health system in a continental country like Brazil limit the implementation of adequate programs to appropriately prevent the cervical cancer. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the results of applying the mobile unit (MU) for cervical cancer screening. From May 2003 to May 2004, a cervical cancer screening was offered to women aged 20–69 years, residing in 19 municipal districts of the Barretos county region, in São Paulo. Out of the 9,560 examination available, 2,964 (31%) women underwent screening. The medium distance traveled by the MU was 45 km. The medium time spent by women in the MU for completion of the questionnaire and doing the exam was 20 minutes. It was observed that 17.0% of women screened had never had the test or had not had it repeated within the last 3 years. The negative response was more common among women aged 20 to 29 years and 60 to 69 years and among women with less schooling and lower socio‐economic income (P < 0.05). MU can significantly overcome the chronic deficiency of public health system accessibility offering opportunity to these women to participate in screening programs. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2010;38:727–730. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.