Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Understanding the overuse and underuse of cervical cancer (CC) screening plays a role in preventing such behaviours, allowing to maximize the CC screening uptake.
Aim: To assess the predictors of being over-screened and never/under-screened in CC screening in Northeast Portugal.
Methods: This is a part of a larger cross-sectional survey carried out in two public health centres in Northeast Portugal (October 2017 to June 2018). Data collection was based on a face-to-face interview. This analysis included 764 women (aged 25-60 years) classified according to the use of CC screening into guideline-consistent screened, over-screened and unscreened/under-screened. Multivariate logistic regression models were conducted to assess predictors of being over-screened and never/under-screened. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) and respective 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were obtained.
Results: One-fourth ( = 197) of participants were unscreened/under-screened and 50.0% ( = 382) of them were classified as over-screened. Regular visits with primary care physicians (OR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.26-0.76) and higher age (OR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96-1.00) reduced the odds of being unscreened/under-screened. Women who received prescription/recommendation for CC screening from primary care physician (OR = 1.89; 95% CI: 1.09-3.29) or both primary care physician and nurse (OR = 2.62; 95% CI: 1.10-6.22) were more likely to be over-screened. Higher level of CC health literacy decreases the odds of being over-screened (OR = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.90-1.00) and unscreened/under-screened (OR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.82-0.92). The majority of over-screened (52.2%) and of under-screened (44.2%) women reported that their screening frequency was based on healthcare provider prescription. Among never-screened women, 60.2% reported that no one prescribed screening.
Conclusion: The increase in CC health literacy can maximize CC screening uptake. Primary healthcare providers could play a role in preventing the overuse and underuse of CC screening.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11320112 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000522666 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!