medigraphic.com

2006, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Fac Med UNAM 2006; 49 (1)

Papanicolaou test information among university students and administrative personnel

Arguero-Licea B, García-Monroy L, Álvarez-Gasca MA, Montaño-Arvizu C, Durán-Díaz A

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 8-14
PDF size: 74.27 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The programs for early detection of Cervicouterine cancer (CuCa) in Mexico have not been able to transmit the importance of the Papanicolaou test mainly due to lack of information at the level of the general population in addition to an attitude of resistance by women towards its practice. Therefore, this work was conducted to find information and attitudes related to Papanicolaou in women in one professional school on the metropolitan area. Nine hundred and fourteen surveys with 6 questions were applied to 674 first year students, 177 members of the administration staff, and 63 to teaching staff. A 94% to 97.4% of the biology students, dental students, administration staff and teaching staff know that the cancer is preventable. An 80 to 85.9% of the students in nursing, medicine, psychology and optometry know what the Papanicolaou test is for. An 83% to 93% of the students never had the test done. The reasons why non-sexually active women do not routinely have their tests done were because of lack of sexual activity and lack of evidence of vaginal infection. The sexually active women population considered the test is unnecessary. The more frequent responses from the population who ignores what the Papanicolaou test is for, were that this test produces uterine and vaginal alterations in addition to inducing infections and “dangerous” illnesses. A large percentage did not give a response. It can be concluded that there is a lack of clear and adequate information about the Papanicolaou test in women of this community.


REFERENCES

  1. Averette H, Perna V. Rastreo de cáncer cervical: perspectivas y bases. Excerpta Médica INC 1993: 63-65.

  2. Ramírez-Heredia J, Rojas-Cañamar M. Valor de la citología cervicovaginal en cáncer cervicouterino. Cancerología 1992; 38: 1691-1693.

  3. Meneses-González F, Lazcano-Ponce EC, Lino-González M y col. Prevalencia de uso de la prueba de Papanicolaou en mujeres de 28 a 50 años en México. Rev Inst Cancerol Mex 2003; 45: 17-23.

  4. Palacio-Mejía LS, Rangel-Gómez G, Hernández-Ávila M, Lazcano-Ponce E. Cervical cancer, a disease of poverty : Mortality differences between urban and rural areas in Mexico. Salud Pública de Mexico 2003; 45: 315-325.

  5. Fink DJ. Change in American Cancer Society checkup guidelines for detection of cervical cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 1988: 127-128.

  6. Shroff JK, Corrigan MA, Bosher M et al. Cervical screening in an inner city area: response to a call system in general practice. BMJ 1988; 297: 1317-1318.

  7. Neilson A, Kenneth RJ. Women’s lay knowledge of cervical cancer/cervical screening: accounting for non-attendance at screening clinics. Blacwell Science Ltd 1998; 28: 571-575.

  8. Raymundo M, Julio C, Cascante E, Francisco J. Conocimientos y prácticas en la citología cervicovaginal: cáncer del cuello uterino en Centroamérica y Panamá. Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol 1996; 6: 11-15.

  9. Nathoo V. Investigation of non responders at cervical cancer screening clinic in Manchester. BMJ 1988; 296: 1041-1042.

  10. Lee CM. Knowledge, Barriers, and Motivators Related to Cervical Cancer Screening Among Korean-American Women. Cancer Nursing 2000; 23: 168-175.

  11. Hubbel FA, Chavez RL, Mishra IS, Burciaga VR. Beliefs about sexual behavior and other predictors of Papanicolaou smear screening among latins and anglowomen. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 2354-2358.

  12. Naish J, Brown J, Denton B. Intercultural consultations investigation of factors that determinant non English speaking woman from attending general practitioners for cervical screening. BMJ 1994; 309: 1126-1128.

  13. Valenzuela MT, Miranda A. ¿Por qué NO me hago el Papanicolaou? Barreras Psicológicas de mujeres de sectores populares de Santiago de Chile. Rev Chil Salud Pública 2001; 5: 75-80.

  14. Eaker S, Hans-Olov A, Sparén P. Attitudes to screening for cervical cancer: a population-based study in Sweden. Cancer Causes and control 2001; 12: 519-528.

  15. Romero-Cancio JA, Santillana-Macedo MA, Guiscafre-Gallardo H. Factores en la no utilización de detección oportuna del Cáncer cervicouterino en medicina familiar. Rev Med IMSS 1997; 35: 227-232.

  16. Bower M. Conocimiento, actitud y conducta de las mujeres frente al análisis de Papanicolaou. Mundo Médico 1993; XX: 59-60.

  17. Lamadrid AS. Conocimientos y temores de las mujeres chilenas con respecto a la prueba del Papanicolaou. Bol Oficina Sanit Panam 1996; 121: 542-549.

  18. Kottke ET, Trapp MA, Fores MM et al. Cancer screening behaviors and attitudes of women in Southeastern Minnesota. JAMA 1995; 273: 1099-1105.

  19. Lazcano-Ponce E, Moss S, Cruz-Valdez A y col. Factores que determinan la participación en el tamizaje de cáncer cervical en el estado de Morelos. Salud Pública de México 1999; 41: 278-284.

  20. Álvarez-González MG, Cernas-Reyes L, Tene PCE, Trujillo-Hernández B. Tamizaje de cáncer cervicouterino en trabajadoras de la salud. Un análisis comparativo con derechohabientes. Ginecología y Obstetricia de México 2001; 69: 227-232.

  21. Nájera-Aguilar P, Lazcano-Ponce E, Alonso de Ruiz P y col. Factores asociados con la familiaridad de mujeres mexicanas con la función del Papanicolaou. Bol Oficina Sanit Panam 1996; 121: 536-541.

  22. Lazcano-Ponce E, Nájera-Aguilar P, Alonso de Ruiz P y col. Programa de Detección Oportuna de Cáncer Cervical en México. 1. Diagnóstico situacional. Cancerología 1996; 42: 123-140.

  23. Daniel WW. Bioestadística: Bases para el análisis de las ciencias de la salud. Ed. Limusa 2002. México, D.F.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com