METHODS: This was a cross sectional study of 1,312 respondents selected using a multistage design. Questionnaires relating to the demographic characteristics, socioeconomic profiles, social and physical environment, knowledge and perception of cancer screening were gathered. Multiple logistic regression models were used to examine the variables and their association with poor perceptions of cancer screening.
RESULTS: Overall, 871(66.4%) respondents had poor perceptions of cancer screenings; 68.4% among males and 64.4% among females. In the multivariable analysis in the category of income, the bottom 40% and lower middle 40%, had not subscribed to health insurance, had poor social support, absence of any family history of cancer or comorbid illnesses, no previous attendance for cancer screening and poor knowledge of cancer, all of which were associated with their poor cancer screening perceptions.
CONCLUSION: One way of developing cancer screening services to detect cancer in its early stage could include efforts to reach people with less awareness about cancer screening tests, lower socioeconomic status, and inadequate social support. Particular consideration should be taken to locate those who never had health insurance or attended cancer screening tests to provide the appropriate resources.
KEY WORDS: Glomus Tumour, Presentation, Imaging, Recurrence.
METHODS: The reporting of this systematic review is in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We carried out a literature search through three databases (Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science) and targeted original article published in English between 2012 and 2021. Quality appraisal of the eligible articles was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were synthesized using content analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 86 studies were included. We found a variety of questionnaires assessing risk perception of NCDs, with many differences in their development, domains, items and validity. We also identified several personal, sociopsychological and structural factors associated with risk perception of NCDs.
LIMITATIONS: Most of the included studies were of cross-sectional design, and therefore the quality of evidence was considered low and exhibit a high risk of bias. The role of publication bias within this systematic review should be acknowledged as we did not include grey literature. Additionally, language bias must be considered as we only included English-language publications.
CONCLUSION: Further development and testing of available questionnaire is warranted to ensure their robustness and validity in measuring risk perception of NCDs. All the identified factors deserve further exploration in longitudinal and experimental studies.