Behaviour Related to Cervical Cancer Risks

Chapter
Part of the The Anthropocene: Politik—Economics—Society—Science book series (APESS, volume 23)

Abstract

Cervical cancer (CC) is a serious public health problem for women in developing countries due principally to a lack of preventive behaviours. CC has a slow evolution that needs years to develop, which allows early detection of abnormal cells that can be treated to prevent CC but otherwise can become cancer cells. This early detection can be accomplished via the Papanicolaou test. In Mexico, we have found that between 20 and 30% of women with primary or middle school education had never undergone a Papanicolaou, and, among those who had done so, only about the half had undergone the test prior to reaching 30 years of age. In addition to low schooling, other variables that we have found to be associated with failure to undergo the test are lack of knowledge about CC and the usefulness of Papanicolaou, as well as the fact of thinking that health depends on luck, destiny or random chance.

Keywords

Cervical cancer Papanicolaou Lack of knowledge Locus of control Barriers Fatalistic beliefs 

References

  1. Abdullahi, A., Copping, J., Kessel, A., Luck, M., Bonell, C. (2009). Cervical screening: Perceptions and barriers to uptake among Somali women in Camden. Public Health, 123, 680–5.Google Scholar
  2. Abraham, C., & Sheeran, P. (2005). The health belief model. In M. Conner and P. Norman. Predicting health behavior (2nd Edition). England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Abraído-Lanza, A.F., Viladrich, A., Flórez, K.R., Céspedes, A., Aguirre, A.N., de la Cruz, A. A. (2007). Commentary: Fatalismo reconsidered: A cautionary note for health-related research and practice with Latino populations. Ethnicity & Disease, 17, 153–158.Google Scholar
  4. Aguilar-Pérez, J.A., Leyva-López, A.G., Angulo-Nájera, D., Salinas, A., Lazcano-Ponce, E. C. (2003). Tamizaje en cáncer cervical: conocimiento de la utilidad y uso de citología cervical en México. (Screening for cervical cancer: knowledge of the utility and usage of cervical cytology in Mexico). Revista Saúde Pública, 37,100–106.Google Scholar
  5. Álvarez, B.J. (2002). Estudio de la creencias, salud y enfermedad. Análisis psicosocial. (A study of beliefs, health and sickness. A psychosocial analysis.) Mexico: Trillas.Google Scholar
  6. Bazan, F., Posso, M. y Gutiérrez, C. (2007). Conocimientos, actitudes y prácticas sobre la prueba de Papanicolaou (Knowledge, attitudes and practices about the PAP test). En Anales de la Facultad de Medicina. 68(001), 47–54.  http://dx.doi.org/10.15381/anales.v68i1.1238.
  7. Chávez, L.R., Hubbell, F.A., Mishra, S.I., Valdez, R.B. (1997). The influence of fatalism on self-reported use of Papanicolaou smears. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 13, 418–424.Google Scholar
  8. Conner, M., & Norman, P. (2005). Predicting health behavior: A social cognition approach. In M. Conner & P. Norman Predicting health behavior. 2nd Edition (pp. 1–27). England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dilts, R., Hallbom, T., Smith, S. (1996). Las Creencias. Caminos hacia la salud y el bienestar. (Beliefs: Roads to health and wellbeing). Argentina: Urano Editions.Google Scholar
  10. Ehrenzweig, Y., Marván, M.L., Acosta, E.A. (2013). Conocimientos sobre la prevención del cáncer cervicouterino, locus de control y realización del Papanicolaou. (Knowledge about the prevention of cervical cancer, locus of control and usage of the Papanicolaou). Revista Psicología y Salud, 23(2), 161–169.Google Scholar
  11. ENSANUT (2012). Prevención y diagnóstico temprano de cáncer en la mujer: soluciones a su alcance. Encuesta Nacional en Salud y Nutrición. Evidencia para la política pública en salud. (Prevention and early diagnosis of cancer in women: solutions within reach. National Survey on Health and Nutrition. Evidence for public health policy.) Resource document. México: Secretaria de Salud e Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública. http://ensanut.insp.mx. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
  12. Espinosa, K., & Gallo, L.C. (2011). The relevance of fatalism in the study of Latinas’ cancer screening behavior: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18, 310–318.Google Scholar
  13. Espinosa-Romero, R., Arreola-Rosales, R.L., Velázquez-Hernández, N., Rodríguez-Reyes, E. R. (2014). Métodos de detección oportuna del cáncer cervicouterino. (Early detection methods for cervical cancer.) Gaceta Mexicana de Oncología, 13(4), 48–52.Google Scholar
  14. GLOBOCAN (2012). Estimated Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012. Resource document. http://globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
  15. Flórez, K.R., Aguirre, A.N., Valadrich, A., Céspedes, A., De la Cruz, A.A., Abraído-Lanza, A.F. (2009). Fatalism or destiny? A qualitative study and interpretative framework on Dominican women’s breast cancer beliefs. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 11, 291–301.Google Scholar
  16. Hernández-Hernández, D.M. et al. (2007). Factores asociados con incumplimiento para tamizaje en cáncer de cerviz. (Factors associated with non-compliance in cervical cancer screening.) Revista Médica Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 45(4), 313–320.Google Scholar
  17. INEGI. (2011). Comunicado No. 267/11. México.Google Scholar
  18. Kumar, V.K., Abbas A.K., Fasuto, N., Aster, J.C. (2007). Patología estructural y funcional (Structural and functional pathology) (7th Ed.). Spain: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. López, V.E. (2013). Percepción de riesgo y respuesta psicosocial ante desastres naturales y tecnológicos. (Risk perception and psychosocial response to natural and technological disasters). In G. R. Ortiz. Tópicos selectos en psicología de la salud. Aportes Latinoamericanos (pp. 139–164). Mexico: Ducere.Google Scholar
  20. López, C.A., Calderón, M.A., González, M.M. (2013). Conocimientos, actitudes y prácticas respecto al cáncer de cuello uterino de mujeres entre 14 y 49 años de un barrio de la comuna 10 de la ciudad de Armenia, Colombia. [Knowledge, attitudes and practices concerning cervical cancer in women between 14 and 19 years in a neighborhood in the 10th commune of the city of Armenia, Colombia.] Revista Médica Risaralda, 19(1), 14–20.Google Scholar
  21. Lovell, S., Kearns R.A., Friesen, W. (2007). Sociocultural barriers to cervical screening in South Auckland, New Zealand. Social Science Medicine, 65, 138–50.Google Scholar
  22. Manzo-Merino, J., Jiménez-Lima, R., Cruz-Gregorio, A. (2014). Biología molecular del cáncer cervicouterino. (Molecular biology of cervical cancer). Gaceta Mexicana de Oncología, 13(4), 18–24.Google Scholar
  23. Marván, M.L., Ehrenzweig, Y., Castillo-López, R.L. (2013). Knowledge about cervical cancer prevention and psychosocial barriers to screening among Mexican women. Journal of Pyschosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 34(4), 163–169.Google Scholar
  24. Marván, M.L., Ehrenzweig, Y., Castillo, R.L. (2014). Fatalistic beliefs and cervical cancer screening among Mexican women. Health Care for Women International, 25, 1–15.Google Scholar
  25. Menard, J., Kobetz, E., Maldonado, J.C., Barton, B., Blanco, J., Diem, J. (2010). Barriers to cervical cancer screening among Haitian immigrant women in Little Haiti, Miami. Journal of Cancer Education, 25(4), 602–8.Google Scholar
  26. Muñoz, N., Reina, J.L., Sánchez, G.I. (2008). La vacuna contra el virus del papiloma humano: una gran arma para la prevención primaria del cáncer de cuello uterino. (The vaccine against human papilloma virus: a great weapon for the primary prevention of cervical cancer). Colombia Médica, 39(2), 196–204.Google Scholar
  27. Niederdeppe, J., & Levy, A.G. (2007). Fatalistic beliefs about cancer prevention and three prevention behaviors. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 16, 998–1003.Google Scholar
  28. Oblitas, L.A. (2010). Psicología de la salud. (Psychology of health). Mexico: Cengage Learning Editores.Google Scholar
  29. OPS (2010). Situación de los Programas para la Prevención y el Control del Cáncer Cervicouterino: Evaluación rápida mediante encuesta en 12 países de América Latina. (Status of Programs for the Prevention and Control of Cervical Cancer: A rapid evaluation via survey in 12 Latin American countries). Resource document. http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=17788&Itemid=270&lang=en. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
  30. Oros, L. (2005). Locus de control: Evolución de su concepto y operacionalización. (Locus of control: Evolution of the concept and its implementation). Revista de Psicología, 14, 89–98.Google Scholar
  31. Palacio-Mejía, L.S., Lazcano-Ponce, E., Allen-Leigh, B. Hernández-Ávila, M. (2009). Diferencias regionales en la mortalidad por cáncer de mama y cérvix en México entre 1979 y 2006. (Regional differences in the mortality from breast and cervical cancers in Mexico between 1979–2006). Salud Pública de México, 51(2):S208–S219.Google Scholar
  32. Rodríguez-Marín, J., & Neipp L., M.C. (2008). Manual de Psicología Social de la Salud. Madrid: Síntesis.Google Scholar
  33. Rosenstock, I.M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education Monographs, 2, 328–335.Google Scholar
  34. Rosenstock, I.M., Strecher, V.J., Becker, M. H. (1988). Social learning and the health belief model. Health Education Quarterly, 5(2), 175–183.Google Scholar
  35. Russell, K.M., Perkins, S.M., Zollinger, T.W. Champion, V.L. (2006). Sociocultural context of mammography screening use. Oncology Nursing Forum, 33, 105–112.Google Scholar
  36. Sánchez-Barriga, J.J. (2012). Tendencias de mortalidad por CaCu en las siete regiones socioeconómicas y en las 32 entidades federativas de México en los años 2000–2008. (Mortality trends for cervical cancer in the seven socioeconomic regions and the 32 federal states of Mexico in the years 2000–2008.) Gaceta Médica de México, 148, 42–51.Google Scholar
  37. Secretaría de Salud (2007). Modificación a la Norma Oficial Mexicana 014 SSA2-1994 Para la Prevención, detección, diagnóstico, tratamiento, control y vigilancia epidemiológica del cáncer cérvico uterino. (Modification of the official Mexican Norm 014 SSA2-1994 for the prevention, detection, diagnosis, treatment, control and epidemiological oversight of cervical cancer). Resource document. Diario Oficial Mexicano de la Federación. www.salud.gob.mx. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
  38. Straughan, P.T. & Seow, A. (2000). Attitudes as barriers in breast screening: A prospective study among Singapore women. Social Science and Medicine, 51, 1695–1703.Google Scholar
  39. Valenzuela, M.T. & Miranda, A. (2001). ¿Por qué no me hago el Papanicolaou? Barreras psicológicas de mujeres de sectores populares de Santiago de Chile. (Why won’t I have a Papanicolaou test? Psychological barriers of women from popular sectors of Santiago, Chile.) Revista Chilena de Salud Pública, 5(2–3),75–80.Google Scholar
  40. Vignolo, J., Vacarezza, M., Álvarez, C., Sosa, A. (2011). Niveles de atención, de prevención y atención primaria de la salud. (Levels of attention, of prevention and primary healthcare attention.) Archivos de Medicina Interna. 33, 7–11.Google Scholar
  41. Walboomers J.M., Jacobs M.V., Manos M.M., Bosch F.X., Kummer J.A., Shah K.V., et al. (1999). Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. The Journal of Pathology, 189, 12–9.Google Scholar
  42. Wiesner, C., Piñeros, M., Trujillo, L.M., Cortés, C., Ardila, J. (2010). Aceptabilidad de la vacuna contra el virus papiloma humano en padres de adolescentes en Colombia. (Acceptability of the vaccine against human papilloma virus in parents of adolescents in Colombia.) Revista de Salud Pública de Colombia, 12 (6), 961–973.Google Scholar
  43. Ybarra, J.L., Pérez, B.E., Romero, D. (2012). Conocimientos y creencias sobre el Papanicolaou en estudiantes universitarios. (Knowledge and beliefs about the Papanicolaou in university students.) Psicología y Salud, 22(2), 185–194.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Psychological Research, Universidad VeracruzanaXalapaMexico

Personalised recommendations