Self-efficacy in requesting cervical or prostate cancer screening: comparing Colombian females and males
PDF (Español (España))

Keywords

Self-efficacy
Mass Screening
Uterine Neoplasms
Prostatic Neoplasms
Health services

How to Cite

Amaya-Castellanos, C. I., Gómez-Rincón, G. A., García-Aparicio, L., & Torres-Ortiz, M. P. (2022). Self-efficacy in requesting cervical or prostate cancer screening: comparing Colombian females and males. Salud UIS, 55. https://doi.org/10.18273/saluduis.55.e:23006

Abstract

Introduction: Cervical and prostate cancers have a significant burden of disease in developing countries. Selfefficacy
to request screening is a key element in prevention. Objective: To compare the perception of men and
women on self-efficacy for cervical and prostate cancer screening. Methods: Mixed study with 50 women and 50
men. Sociodemographic data was investigated. The cervical cancer detection self-efficacy scale was applied, with a
modification for measuring prostate cancer in men. Self-efficacy was classified by levels and the variables associated
with it were identified with robust regression. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 individuals (18
men and 9 women) with low and high self-efficacy and of “other religion” to know the differences in the intention
of the screening. Three categories of analysis were created based on the health belief model. Results: Women and
men were similar except for religion, occupation, and history of Pap smear or rectal exam. Self-efficacy was higher
among women (Adj. β: -15.29, 95% CI: -18.36 to -12.21) and non-believers (Adj. β: -5.38, 95% CI: -10.33 to
-0.44). They seek screening more than men because they need to have symptoms. Shame and discomfort are barriers
expressed by both genders. In men, machismo is a strong barrier to request screening. Religion associates sex with
impurity, thus, acts as a barrier among women. Health care services only focus on female screening. Conclusions:
gender roles and elements of religion are cultural expressions, which determine the intention of cancer detection
in men and women. Health services interventions should consider these elements to improve the coverage of early
detection and reduce the morbidity and mortality of these two types of cancer.

https://doi.org/10.18273/saluduis.55.e:23006
PDF (Español (España))

References

Bravo L, Muñoz N. Epidemiology of cancer in Colombia. Colomb Med. 2018; 49(1): 9-12. doi: 10.25100/cm.v49i1.3877

Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel R, Torre L, Jemal A. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68(6): 394-424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492

Ospina ML, Huertas JA, Montaño JI, Rivillas JC. Observatorio Nacional de Cáncer Colombia. Rev Fac Nac Salud Pública. 2015; 33(2): 262-276. doi: 10.17533/udea.rfnsp.v33n2a13

Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, de Sanjosé S, Saraiya M, Ferlay J, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2020; 8(2): e191-e203. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30482-6

Eller LS, Lev EL, Yuan C, Watkins AV. Describing self‐care self‐efficacy: Definition, measurement, outcomes, and implications. Int J Nurs Knowl. 2018; 29(1): 38-48. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/2047-3095.12143

Namdar A, Bigizadeh SH, Naghizadeh MM. Measuring health belief model components in adopting preventive behaviors towards cervical cancer. JFUMS. 2012; 2(1): 34-44.

Wong N. Investigating the effects of cancer risk and efficacy perceptions on cancer prevention adherence and intentions. Health Commun. 2009; 24(2): 95–105. doi: 10.1080/10410230802676474

Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychol Rev. 1977; 84(2): 191-215. doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Fernández ME, Diamond PM, Rakowski W, Gonzales A, Tortolero-Luna G, Williams J, et al. Development and validation of a cervical cancer screening self-efficacy scale for low-income Mexican American women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009; 18(3) :866-875. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2950

Jeihooni A, Kashfi S, Kashfi S, Heydarabadi A, Imanzad M, Hafez A. Factors associated with prostate cancer screening behavior among men over 50 in Fasa, Iran, based on the PRECEDE model. Electron Physician. 2015; 7(2): 1054-1062. doi: 10.14661/2015.1054-1062

Figueroa A, Márquez M, Idrovo AJ, Allen-Leigh B. Individual and community effectiveness of a cervical cancer screening program for semi-urban Mexican women. J Community Health. 2014; 39: 423–431. doi:10.1007/s10900-013-9802-x

Aranguren L, Burbano J, González J, Mojica A, Plazas D, Prieto B. Barreras para la prevención y detección temprana de cáncer de cuello uterino: revisión. Investig Enferm Imagen Desarr. 2017; 19(2): 129-143. doi: 10.11144/Javeriana.ie19-2.bpdt

Vaccarella S, Franceschi S, Engholm G, Lönnberg S, Khan S, Bray F. 50 years of screening in the Nordic countries: quantifying the effects on cervical cancer incidence. Br J Cancer. 2014; 111(5): 965–969. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.362

Simms KT, Steinberg J, Caruana M, Smith MA, Lew JB, Soerjomataram I, et al. Impact of scaled up human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical screening and the potential for global elimination of cervical cancer in 181 countries, 2020-99: a modelling study. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20(3): 394-407. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30836-2

Winterich J, Quandt S, Grzywacz J, Clark P, Miller D, Acuña B, et al. Masculinity and the Body: How African-American and white men experience cancer screening exams involving the rectum. Am J Men’s Health 2009; 3(4): 300-309. doi: 10.1177/1557988308321675.

Greene JC, Caracelli VJ, Graham WF. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educ Eval Pol Anal 1989; 11: 255-274. doi: doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255

Teddlie C, Yu F. Mixed methods sampling: a typology with examples. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007; 1(1): 77-100. doi: 10.1177/2345678906292430

Huber PJ. Regression. In: Robust statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1981:153-198.

Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006; 18: 59-82. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903

Rosentock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH. Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health educ Q. 1988; 15(2): 175-183. doi: 10.1177/109019818801500203

McQueen A, Vernon SW, Meissner HI, Rakowski W. Risk perceptions and worry about cancer: does gender make a difference? J Health Commun. 2008; 13(1): 56-79. doi: 10.1080/10810730701807076

Allen JD, Leyva B, Torres AI, Ospino H, Tom L, Rustan S, et al. Religious beliefs and cancer screening behaviors among Catholic Latinos: implications for faith-based interventions. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2014; 25(2): 503-526. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2014.0080

Mitchell J, Lannin DR, Mathews HF, Swanson MS. Religious beliefs and breast cancer screening. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2002; 11(10): 907-915. doi: 10.1089/154099902762203740

Krause N. Religiosity and self-esteem among older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 1995; 50(5): 236–246. doi: 10.1093/geronb/50b.5.p236.

Camarena ME; Tunal G. La religión como una dimensión de la cultura. Nómadas. 2009; 22(2): 1- 15. https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/NOMA/article/view/NOMA0909240041A

Bowie JV, Bell CN, Ewing A, Kinlock B, Ezema A, Thorpe RJ, et al. Religious coping and types and sources of information used in making prostate cancer treatment decisions. Am J Mens Health 2017; 11(4): 1237-1246. doi: 10.1177/1557988317690977

Fang CY, Lee M, Feng Z, Tan Y, Levine F, Nguyen C, et al. Community-based cervical cancer education: changes in knowledge and beliefs among Vietnamese American women. J Community Health. 2019; 44(3): 525-533. doi: 10.1007/s10900-019-00645-6

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2022 Claudia Isabel Amaya-Castellanos, Germán Andrés Gómez-Rincón, Laura García-Aparicio, María Paula Torres-Ortiz

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.