Download PDF
Gesundheitswesen 2014; 76(08/09): 500-507
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1349870
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Soziodemografische Aspekte stehen im Zusammenhang mit dem Brustkrebsscreeningverhalten von Patientinnen: Ergebnisse einer Querschnittsuntersuchung

Sociodemographic Aspects are Associated with Breast Cancer Screening Behaviour of Female Patients: Results of a Cross-Sectional Survey
D. Haluza
1   Institut für Umwelthygiene, Zentrum für Public Health, Medizinische Universität Wien, Wien, Österreich
,
M. Kundi
1   Institut für Umwelthygiene, Zentrum für Public Health, Medizinische Universität Wien, Wien, Österreich
,
S. Vogl
2   Universitätsklinik für Frauenheilkunde, Medizinische Universität Wien, Wien, Österreich
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
02 August 2013 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

In Österreich werden für Frauen ab einem Alter von 40 Jahren Mammografieuntersuchungen zur Brustkrebsfrüherkennung in Form von opportunistischem Screening angeboten. Trotz öffentlicher Diskussion über Nutzen und Risiken dieser Screeningprogramme fehlen Evidenzbasierte, online oder in gedruckter Form verfügbare Informa­tionsmaterialien für Patientinnen. Die vorliegende Forschungsarbeit beschreibt den mittels Fragebogenerhebung untersuchten Zusammenhang der soziodemografischen Faktoren Migrationshintergrund, Bildung und Alter mit dem individuellen Brustkrebsscreeningverhalten von Patientinnen und der Nutzung unterschiedlicher Informationsquellen zum Thema Brustkrebs. In der monozentrischen Querschnittsuntersuchung partizipierten Patientinnen (n=333) der Ambulanz der Abteilung für Spezielle Gynäkologie des Allgemeinen Krankenhauses Wien, Österreich. Insgesamt 93,4% (n=282) der befragten Frauen hatten bereits am Mammografie-Screening teilgenommen. Während 86,3% der teilnehmenden Frauen regelmäßige fachärztliche Besuche angaben, gingen Patientinnen mit Migrationshintergrund seltener (p=0,02), besser gebildete und ältere Frauen jedoch eher häufiger (p<0,02) zu einer/m Frauenärztin/arzt. Teilnehmerinnen mit einer höheren abgeschlossenen Ausbildung (p=0,04) und in einem Alter zwischen 50 und 69 Jahren (p<0,05) fühlten sich besser über Brustkrebs informiert, wohingegen das Vorhandensein eines Migrationshintergrundes in keinem Zusammenhang mit dem subjektiven Informationsstand der Frauen stand. Informationen über Brustkrebs fanden die befragten Patientinnen großteils (67,9%) bei einer/m Ärztin/Arzt sowie in einschlägigen Broschüren (33%). Auch Massenmedien dienten als häufig genannte Informationsquelle (22,8%), hingegen wurde das Internet (10,5%) für diesen Zweck weniger genützt. Die Ergebnisse der vorliegenden Studie zeigen, dass Patientinnen das ärztliche Gespräch als wichtigste Informationsquelle für medizinische Fragestellungen zum Thema Brustkrebs bewerteten. Es ist demnach zu fordern, dass das öffentliche Gesundheitssystem durch Bereitstellung einheitlicher, Qualitätsgesicherter Aufklärungs- und Informationsmaterialien einen Beitrag zur positiven Gesundheitskommunikation leistet.

Abstract

In Austria, opportunistic mammography screening for detection of early-stages breast cancer is offered for women older than 40 years. In spite of public discussions on the effectiveness of mammography screening, evidence-based educative information material for female patients availa­ble online and in print is lacking. The present study describes the influence of the 3 sociodemo­graphic characteristics migration background, education, and age on the individual’s breast cancer screening behaviour as well as on the usage of various information sources on breast cancer for patients. In total, 333 outpatients of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, General Hospital, Vienna, Austria, participated in a monocentric cross-sectional study. Regarding breast cancer screening, 93.4% (n=282) of the female patients had at least one previous mammogram. Furthermore, 86.3% of the participants regularly consulted their gynaecologist, while women with migration background reported less frequent (p=0.02), and well-educated as well as older patients reported more frequent (p<0.02) gynaecological consultations. Higher-educated women (p=0.04) and participants aged between 50 and 69 years (p<0.05) felt better informed on breast cancer-related topics, whereas a migration background was not associated with the perceived level of information. Medical doctors (67.9%) as well as pertinent folders (33%) were the most relevant information sources on breast cancer. Mass media (22.8%) were also a relevant information source on this issue, whereas the Internet (10.5%) was quite rarely referred to for this purpose. The results of the present study show that female patients perceived the medical doctor as the most important source of medical information on breast cancer. The public health-care system could facilitate positive health communication in the doctors/patient relationship by providing homogenous, quality assured educative information material.

Schlüsselwörter

Brustkrebs - Informationsquellen - Mammografie - Migrationshintergrund - opportunistisches Screening

Key words

breast cancer - information sources - mammography - migration background - opportunistic screening
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Wild C. Screening in Austria – The cases of mammography, PSA test­ing, and routine use of ultrasound in pregnancy. Int J Technol Assess 2001; 17: 305-315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Statistik Austria Gesundheitsausgaben in Österreich 1990–2009 http://www.statistikat/web_de/statistiken/gesundheit/gesundheitsausgaben/index.html 2010
    PubMed
  • 3 Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S et al. Effects of Mammography Screening Under Different Screening Schedules: Model Estimates of Potential Benefits and Harms. Annals of Internal Medicine 2009; 151: 738-747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gotzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; CD001877
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kirsh VA, Chiarelli AM, Edwards SA et al. Tumor Characteristics Associated With Mammographic Detection of Breast Cancer in the Ontario Breast Screening Program. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2011
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Riedl CC, Ponhold L, Flöry D et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast Improves Detection of Invasive Cancer, Preinvasive Cancer, and Premalignant Lesions during Surveillance of Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer. Clinical Cancer Research 2007; 13: 6144-6152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Jorgensen KJ, Brodersen J, Hartling OJ et al. Informed choice requires information about both benefits and harms. J Med Ethics 2009; 35: 268-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Flynn P, Betancourt H, Ormseth S. Culture, Emotion, and Cancer Screen­ing: an Integrative Framework for Investigating Health Behavior. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2011 DOI: 10.1007/s12160-011-9267-z
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Taggart L, Truesdale-Kennedy M, McIlfatrick S. The role of community nurses and residential staff in supporting women with intellectual disability to access breast screening services. J Intell Disabil Res 2011; 55: 41-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Barratt A, Howard K, Irwig L et al. Model of outcomes of screening mammography: information to support informed choices. Brit Med J 2005; 330: 936-938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dreier M, Borutta B, Toppich J et al. Früherkennung von Brust- und Gebärmutterhalskrebs – ein systematischer Review zu Wissen, Einstellungen und Inanspruchnahmeverhalten der Frauen in Deutschland. Gesundheitswesen. 2011
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Thornton H, Edwards A, Baum M. Women need better information about routine mammography. Brit Med J 2003; 327: 101-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bruce-Chwatt LJ. Declaration of Helsinki. Recommendations Guiding Doctors in Clinical Research. WHO Chron 1965; 19: 31-32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Jeschke E, Ostermann T, Dippong N et al. Psychometric properties of the Confidence and Trust in Delivery Questionnaire (CTDQ): a pilot study. BMC Womens Health 2012; 12: 26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mccullagh P. Regression-Models for Ordinal Data. J Roy Stat Soc B Met 1980; 42: 109-142
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Vutuc C, Waldhoer T, Haidinger G. Breast cancer trends: opportunistic screening in Austria versus controlled screening in Finland and Sweden. Eur J Cancer Prev 2006; 15: 343-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Albert US, Kalder M, Schulte H et al. Das populationsbezogene Mammografie-Screening-Programm in Deutschland: Inanspruchnahme und erste Erfahrungen von Frauen in 10 Bundesländern. Gesundheitswesen 2012; 74: 61-70
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Statistik Austria Österreichische Gesundheitsbefragung 2006/2007 http://www.statistikat/web_de/statistiken/gesundheit/gesundheitsversorgung/gesundheitsvorsorge/index.html 2009
    PubMed
  • 19 Sanger S, Nickel J, Huth A et al. Well-informed on health matters–how well? The German ‘Clearinghouse for Patient Information’ – objective, background and methods. Gesundheitswesen 2002; 64: 391-397
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Fentiman IS, Fourquet A, Hortobagyi GN. Male breast cancer. The Lancet 2006; 367: 595-604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2011
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Davey HM, Butow PN, Armstrong BK. Cancer patients’ preferences for written prognostic information provided outside the clinical context. Br J Cancer 2003; 89: 1450-1456
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Rásky É, Groth S. Informationsmaterialien zum Mammographiescreening in Österreich – Unterstützen sie die informierte Entscheidung von Frauen?. Sozial- und Präventivmedizin/Social and Preventive Medicine 2004; 49: 391-397
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kurzenhauser S. What kind of information do German health information pamphlets provide on mammography screening?. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2003; 97: 53-57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Gigerenzer G, Mata J, Frank R. Public Knowledge of Benefits of Breast and Prostate Cancer Screening in Europe. J Natl Cancer I 2009; 101: 1216-1220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Mladovsky P, Ingleby D, McKee M et al. Good practices in migrant health: the European experience. Clin Med 2012; 12: 248-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hesketh T, Jun YX, Lu L et al. Health status and access to health care of migrant workers in China. Public Health Rep 2008; 123: 189-197
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Johansson B, Helgesson M, Lundberg I et al. Work and health among immigrants and native Swedes 1990–2008: a register-based study on hospitalization for common potentially work-related disorders, disability pension and mortality. BMC Public Health 2012; 12: 845.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Malmusi D, Borrell C, Benach J. Migration-related health inequalities: showing the complex interactions between gender, social class and place of origin. Soc Sci Med 2010; 71: 1610-1619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ma I, Dueck A, Gray R et al. Clinical and self breast examination remain important in the era of modern screening. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19: 1484-1490
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Mathis KL, Hoskin TL, Boughey JC et al. Palpable presentation of breast cancer persists in the era of screening mammography. J Am Coll Surg 2010; 210: 314-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Logan DE, Claar RL, Scharff L. Social desirability response bias and self-report of psychological distress in pediatric chronic pain patients. Pain 2008; 136: 366-372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Maruti SS, Willett WC, Feskanich D et al. Physical activity and pre­menopausal breast cancer: an examination of recall and selection bias. Cancer Causes Control 2009; 20: 549-558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kozlowska E, Szewczyk MT, Banaszkiewicz Z et al. Knowledge of symptoms and diagnostic possibilities of cancer diseases. Arch Med Sci 2011; 7: 304-309
    PubMedGoogle Scholar