4.1 Article

Factors Associated with the Use of Gastric Cancer Screening Services in Korea: The Fourth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2008 (KNHANES IV)

Journal

ASIAN PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION
Volume 13, Issue 8, Pages 3773-3779

Publisher

ASIAN PACIFIC ORGANIZATION CANCER PREVENTION
DOI: 10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.8.3773

Keywords

Gastric cancer; screening; participation; risk factors; Korea

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Despite government efforts to increase participation in gastric cancer screening, the rate is still suboptimal in Korea. Therefore, we explored barriers to and predictors of gastric cancer screening participation among a nationally representative sample. Methods: We used the Health Interview Survey sub-dataset derived from the Fourth Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2008 (KNHANES IV) to evaluate participation in gastric cancer screening and factors associated with attendance in individuals age >= 40 years. We enrolled 4,464 subjects who completed the questionnaire and were not previously diagnosed with gastric cancer. Four groups of factors were considered potential predictors of gastric cancer screening in a multivariate analysis: sociodemographic, health behavior, psychological and cognitive, and dietary factors. Results: Overall, 41.3% complied with the gastric cancer screening recommendations. Younger age, lower education level, living without a spouse, frequent binge drinker, and current smoker were significantly associated with less participation in gastric cancer screening. Conclusions: To improve participation in gastric cancer screening, more focused interventions should be directed to vulnerable populations, such as groups with low socioeconomic status or unhealthy behavior. In addition, there should be new promotional campaigns and health education to provide information targeting these vulnerable populations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available