4.4 Review

Barriers to breast cancer screening in Singapore: A literature review

期刊

ANNALS ACADEMY OF MEDICINE SINGAPORE
卷 51, 期 8, 页码 493-501

出版社

ACAD MEDICINE SINGAPORE
DOI: 10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2021329

关键词

Barriers; breast cancer; mammography; screening programme

资金

  1. Hologic Singapore Pte Ltd

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reviewed the barriers to breast cancer screening in Singapore and found that perceived costs/barriers vs benefits appear to be the most common barriers. Recommendations to improve screening rates include increasing convenience, reducing costs, and improving engagement with support groups.
Introduction: Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer death among women, and its age-standardised incidence rate is one of the highest in Asia. We aimed to review studies on barriers to breast cancer screening to inform future policies in Singapore. Method: This was a literature review of both quantitative and qualitative studies published between 2012 and 2020 using PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane databases, which analysed the perceptions and behaviours of women towards breast cancer screening in Singapore. Results: Through a thematic analysis based on the Health Belief Model, significant themes associated with low breast cancer screening uptake in Singapore were identified. The themes are: (1) high perceived barriers versus benefits, including fear of the breast cancer screening procedure and its possible outcomes, (2) personal challenges that impede screening attendance and paying for screening and treatment, and (3) low perceived susceptibility to breast cancer. Conclusion: Perceived costs/barriers vs benefits of screening appear to be the most common barriers to breast cancer screening in Singapore. Based on the barriers identified, increasing convenience to get screened, reducing mammogram and treatment costs, and improving engagement with support groups are recommended to improve the screening uptake rate in Singapore.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据