4.5 Article

Public Awareness of Gastric Cancer Risk Factors and Disease Screening in a High Risk Region: A Population-Based Study

Journal

CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
Volume 41, Issue 2, Pages 59-66

Publisher

KOREAN CANCER ASSOCIATION
DOI: 10.4143/crt.2009.41.2.59

Keywords

Stomach cancer; Public health; Prevention

Categories

Funding

  1. Pfizer, Korea, Ltd.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose This study involved a population-based survey to provide evidence of public awareness of risk factors of gastric cancer and to investigate attitudes for the screening of gastric cancer in the South Korean population. Materials and Methods Using a nationwide random selection method, 2014 subjects were enrolled in the study between 5 September 2006 and 25 September 2006. Results In terms of the awareness of risk factors, awareness was scored as the percentage of the probability of developing gastric cancer when a subject had a particular risk factor. For the risk factors, stress ranked highest with a score of 73.5%, followed by chronic gastritis (score of 72.1%), gastric ulcer (score of 71.2%) and a previous gastrectomy history (score of 68.7%). Other factors included a diet of charred foods (score of 67.3%), alcohol use (score of 65.3%), salty diet (score of 65.1%), history of smoking (score of 64.3%) and Helicobacter pylori infection (score of 57.5%). Subjects believed that 60.4% of all gastric cancers were preventable by lifestyle modification and the subjects believed that regular screening could prevent 72.1% of all gastric cancers. However, 54% of subjects did not receive regular screening and the most common reason for not undergoing screening was a lack of symptoms. Conclusion Public education about the risk factors of gastric cancer and of lifestyle modifications and the importance of regular screening regardless of the presence of symptoms should be emphasized to reduce gastric cancer mortality in South Korea.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available