Premium
Factors affecting the uptake of cervical cancer screening among nurses in Singapore
Author(s) -
Tay Kaijun,
Tay Sun K.,
Tesalona Katherine C.,
Rashid Nadia M.R.,
Tai Esther Y.S.,
Najib Sitti J.M.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
international journal of gynecology and obstetrics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.895
H-Index - 97
eISSN - 1879-3479
pISSN - 0020-7292
DOI - 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.03.037
Subject(s) - medicine , respondent , cervical cancer , family medicine , cervical screening , risk perception , cervical cancer screening , cancer screening , socioeconomic status , cross sectional study , cancer , gynecology , perception , environmental health , population , psychology , pathology , neuroscience , political science , law
Objective To identify factors other than socioeconomic status that influence participation in cervical cancer screening. Methods A prospective, questionnaire‐based, cross‐sectional study was conducted among all female nurses working at Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, between November 1 and December 15, 2013. Characteristics assessed included age, knowledge score (0–10, on the basis of 10 true‐or‐false statements), perceived risk of cervical cancer, and health facility use. Results Among 2000 nurses, 1622 (81.1%) responded. The mean knowledge score was 4.70 ± 1.76. Among 1593 nurses who reported on self‐perception of risk, 97 (6.1%) reported high risk, 675 (42.4%) reported low risk, and 821 (51.5%) reported uncertainty. Of the 815 nurses reporting on their history of screening, 344 (42.2%) were screened regularly, 103 (12.6%) underwent opportunistic screening, and 368 (45.2%) had never undergone screening. The likelihood of screening was increased among women aged 35–49 years, those who had recent experience of medical screening, those who had recently had a specialist consultation, or those who had recently had a consultation with a gynecologist ( P < 0.001 for all). Nurses undergoing regular screening reported positive effects of a doctor's recommendation, husband's encouragement, people talking about screening, and people close to the respondent undergoing screening. Conclusion Advocacy and herd signaling positively influenced the cervical cancer screening rate.