比较自我报告遵守宫颈癌和乳腺癌筛查指南与研究人员职业的关系。

Maria Moudatsou, G. Kritsotakis, A. Koutis, A. Alegakis, Evangelia Panagoulopoulou, A. Philalithis
{"title":"比较自我报告遵守宫颈癌和乳腺癌筛查指南与研究人员职业的关系。","authors":"Maria Moudatsou, G. Kritsotakis, A. Koutis, A. Alegakis, Evangelia Panagoulopoulou, A. Philalithis","doi":"10.24283/hjns.2019.3.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Self-reporting is a major and, in many cases, the only feasible method to use in cancer screening research. However, its validity has been questioned and numerous studies indicate that women over-report their participation in preventive Pap-test and mammography screenings.\nAim: The objective of this study was to determine whether individuals report in the same way their Pap-test and mammography screening behaviors when the interviews are conducted by researchers of different professions, in this case a social worker and a general practitioner.\nMethods: Two studies assessing adherence to cervical and breast cancer screening guidelines were conducted during late 2006 - early 2007 in the same 114 women in Crete, Greece. Kappa coefficient was used to measure the agreement of participants’ answers to the same questions between the two interviewers.\nResults: Only 32 out of 90 (35,5%) of the women replied that ‘have had at least one’ gynecological exam respectively in both studies (Kappa=0.189, p<0.001). Agreement was also weak (Kappa=0.386 and 0.235) for self-reported mammography and Pap smear tests in the last 6 years, respectively. There were no significant differences in major demographic characteristics between women who provided, or not, the same answers in both interviewers, apart from the self-reported health status (p=0.032).\nConclusions: Women overestimated their self-reported adherence to cancer screening guidelines when the interviewer was a doctor once their responses were matched to those given to a social worker. The professional identities of the researchers that perform the data collection should be made explicit to make comparison across studies more accurate.","PeriodicalId":126636,"journal":{"name":"Hellenic Journal of Nursing Science","volume":"76 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of self-reported adherence to cervical and breast cancer screening guidelines in relation to the researcher’s profession.\",\"authors\":\"Maria Moudatsou, G. Kritsotakis, A. Koutis, A. Alegakis, Evangelia Panagoulopoulou, A. Philalithis\",\"doi\":\"10.24283/hjns.2019.3.6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Self-reporting is a major and, in many cases, the only feasible method to use in cancer screening research. However, its validity has been questioned and numerous studies indicate that women over-report their participation in preventive Pap-test and mammography screenings.\\nAim: The objective of this study was to determine whether individuals report in the same way their Pap-test and mammography screening behaviors when the interviews are conducted by researchers of different professions, in this case a social worker and a general practitioner.\\nMethods: Two studies assessing adherence to cervical and breast cancer screening guidelines were conducted during late 2006 - early 2007 in the same 114 women in Crete, Greece. Kappa coefficient was used to measure the agreement of participants’ answers to the same questions between the two interviewers.\\nResults: Only 32 out of 90 (35,5%) of the women replied that ‘have had at least one’ gynecological exam respectively in both studies (Kappa=0.189, p<0.001). Agreement was also weak (Kappa=0.386 and 0.235) for self-reported mammography and Pap smear tests in the last 6 years, respectively. There were no significant differences in major demographic characteristics between women who provided, or not, the same answers in both interviewers, apart from the self-reported health status (p=0.032).\\nConclusions: Women overestimated their self-reported adherence to cancer screening guidelines when the interviewer was a doctor once their responses were matched to those given to a social worker. The professional identities of the researchers that perform the data collection should be made explicit to make comparison across studies more accurate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":126636,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hellenic Journal of Nursing Science\",\"volume\":\"76 4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hellenic Journal of Nursing Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24283/hjns.2019.3.6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hellenic Journal of Nursing Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24283/hjns.2019.3.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自我报告是一种主要的,在许多情况下,唯一可行的方法,用于癌症筛查研究。然而,其有效性受到质疑,许多研究表明,妇女过度报告她们参与预防性巴氏试验和乳房x光检查。目的:本研究的目的是确定当由不同专业的研究人员进行访谈时,个体是否以相同的方式报告他们的巴氏试验和乳房x光检查行为,在本例中是社会工作者和全科医生。方法:2006年底至2007年初,在希腊克里特岛的114名妇女中进行了两项评估宫颈癌和乳腺癌筛查指南依从性的研究。Kappa系数被用来衡量参与者在两个采访者之间对相同问题的回答的一致性。结果:在两项研究中,90名女性中只有32名(35.5%)分别回答“至少做过一次”妇科检查(Kappa=0.189, p<0.001)。在过去6年中,自我报告的乳房x光检查和巴氏涂片检查的一致性也很弱(Kappa=0.386和0.235)。除了自我报告的健康状况外,在两个访谈者中提供或不提供相同答案的妇女之间的主要人口统计学特征没有显著差异(p=0.032)。结论:当面试者是医生时,一旦她们的回答与给社会工作者的回答相匹配,她们就会高估自己对癌症筛查指南的依从性。应该明确进行数据收集的研究人员的职业身份,以便更准确地进行跨研究的比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of self-reported adherence to cervical and breast cancer screening guidelines in relation to the researcher’s profession.
Introduction: Self-reporting is a major and, in many cases, the only feasible method to use in cancer screening research. However, its validity has been questioned and numerous studies indicate that women over-report their participation in preventive Pap-test and mammography screenings. Aim: The objective of this study was to determine whether individuals report in the same way their Pap-test and mammography screening behaviors when the interviews are conducted by researchers of different professions, in this case a social worker and a general practitioner. Methods: Two studies assessing adherence to cervical and breast cancer screening guidelines were conducted during late 2006 - early 2007 in the same 114 women in Crete, Greece. Kappa coefficient was used to measure the agreement of participants’ answers to the same questions between the two interviewers. Results: Only 32 out of 90 (35,5%) of the women replied that ‘have had at least one’ gynecological exam respectively in both studies (Kappa=0.189, p<0.001). Agreement was also weak (Kappa=0.386 and 0.235) for self-reported mammography and Pap smear tests in the last 6 years, respectively. There were no significant differences in major demographic characteristics between women who provided, or not, the same answers in both interviewers, apart from the self-reported health status (p=0.032). Conclusions: Women overestimated their self-reported adherence to cancer screening guidelines when the interviewer was a doctor once their responses were matched to those given to a social worker. The professional identities of the researchers that perform the data collection should be made explicit to make comparison across studies more accurate.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信