medigraphic.com
Revista de Enfermería del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

2002, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Enferm IMSS 2002; 10 (1)

Restrictions in the use of the Preventive Medicine services for the DOC

Hernández-Hernández CI, Girón-Carrillo JL, Correa-Chacón AJ, Hernández-Lara JA, Esquivel-Adame A, Jacobo SAM

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 7-10
PDF size: 118.50 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The frequency of cervicouterine cancer (CaCu) widely according to the several ethnics forms worldwide, in some countries of continuous Latin American being the first cause in the female population.
Objective: To identify factors that influence refusing opportune detection of cancer cervicouterine.
Material and methods: A cross sectional, observational study in the Familiar Medicine Unit No 4 of the of Social Security Mexican Institute at Zacatecas by the aplication of surveys in medicare women, during 2000. Included in study women rightful claimants of 15 to 49 years whit active sexual life were interviewed with a questionnaire to evaluate their personal attitudes toward DOC.
Results: A total of 100 individuals was studied, an average of the women of 28 years with a rank of 33 years and one deviation to standard 8.5, the 60% made the Opportune Detection of Cancer (DOC). Risk factors were (OR=24.6; CI 95% 5.05 to 162.6), the number of pregnancies(OR=24.6; CI 95% 5.05 to 162.6), the age (OR= 13.35; CI 95% 4.57-40.5), the school grade (OR=1.85; CI95% 0.68-4.87), the beginning of active sexual life (OR=1.42: CI 95% 0.59-3.43) showed association among the attitudes that influence refusing to attendent to DOC.
Conclusions:Among women who don't attendat DOC have more weight personal attitude toward DOC have more than knowledge on the subject.


REFERENCES

  1. Salinas MA, Ríos VE, Garza EME, et al. Calidad del programa de detección oportuna de cáncer cervicouterino en el estado de Nuevo León. Salud Pública Mex.1997; 39: 187-194.

  2. Lazcano PE, Moss S, Cruz VA, et al. Factores que determinan la participación en el tamizaje de cáncer cervical en el estado de Morelos. Salud Publica Mex. 1999;41:278-85.

  3. Lazcano EC, Moss S, Alonso P, Salmerón J, Hernández M. Cervical cancer in developing countries why it is ineffective, the case of Mexico. Arch Med Res 1999;30 (3): 240-250.

  4. Mahlck CG, The papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection: A triumph and a tragedy. JAMA 1989; 261: 737-43.

  5. Devessa SS, Pollack ES, Young JL. Assesing the validity of observed cancer incidence trends. Am J Epidemiol 1984; 119:274-291

  6. Fasal E, Simón ME, Kampert JB. Factors associated with high and low risk of cervical neoplasia. J Nal Cancer Inst 1969;42:455-468.

  7. Olvera RA, Quiroz PS, Pérez LJ et al. Displasia cervical y carcinoma cervicouterino: Un reto para los servicios de salud. Ginec Obst Mex. 1998; 66: 232-36.

  8. Hernández Avila M, Lazcano Ponce EC, Alonso de Ruiz P, Romieu I. Evaluation of the cervical cancer screening program in Mexico: A population-based case control study. Int J Epidemiol 1998; 27: 1- 7.

  9. Lazcano-Ponce E, Rascón-Pacheco R, Lozano-Ascencio R, Velasco. Mortality from carcinoma of the cervix in Mexico: Impact of screening 1980- 1990. Acta cytologica 1996; 40:506- 512.

  10. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Boletín estadístico anual de mortalidad 1995. Coordinación de Salud Comunitaria, Dirección de Prestaciones Médicas, IMSS.

  11. Escandon RC, Benítez MMG, Navarrete EJ, Vázquez MJL, Martínez MOG y Escobedo PJ. Epidemiología del cáncer cervicouterino en el Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Salud Pública Mex 1992; 34:607-14.

  12. Ahueda JR, Citología cervical. Ginec Obstet Mex 1997; 65:227-228.

  13. Koss LG. The papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection: A triumph and a tragedy. JAMA 1989; 261:737- 43.

  14. Verduzco RL, Palet GJA, Aguirre GH, et al. Cáncer cervicouterino y edad. Ginec Obstet Mex 1997;65: 119-22.

  15. Hernández AM, Lazcano PEC, Alonso RP et al. Evaluación del programa de detección oportuna del cáncer del cuello uterino en la ciudad de México. Gac Med Mex. 1994;130: 201-09.

  16. Bronfman M, Guiscafre GH, Castro B, Castro R, Gutiérrez G. La medición de la desigualdad: Una estrategia metodológica, análisis de las características socioeconómicas de la muestra. Arch Invest med (Mex) 1988; 19:351.

  17. Meneses González F, Cos Arroyo MT, Tapia Conyer R. Evaluación de las actividades de detección y seguimiento del cáncer cervicouterino en población bajo cobertura de la Secretaría de Salud, México 1992. Rev Inst Nal Cancerol 1994;40: 168.177.

  18. Harris RW, Brintton LA, Cawdell RH, et al. Characteristics of women with dysplasia or carcinoma in situ of the cervix uterine. Br J Cancer 1980;42: 359-369.

  19. Brinton LA, Fraumeni JF. Epidemiology of uterine cervical cancer. J Chron Dis 1986; 39: 1051-1065.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com