Maria Moudatsou, G. Kritsotakis, A. Koutis, A. Alegakis, Evangelia Panagoulopoulou, A. Philalithis
{"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}
引用次数: 0
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.
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.