P09-02POPULATION-BASED STUDY ABOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF WOMEN ON SECONDARY PREVENTION OF CERVICAL CANCER.

31. Health education
M. Hernández Aragón 1, C. Abad Rubio 2, B. Obón Castel 1, O. Lafalla Bernad 1, L. Ruiz Campo 1, J.M. Ramón Cajal 1.
1FEA Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital San Jorge (Huesca) (Spain), 2MIR Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital San Jorge (Huesca) (Spain)

Background / Objectives

We study the knowledge of feminine general population about the secondary prevention of cervical cancer.


Methods

We made a descriptive study of the level of knowledge about the screening of cervical pathology and its tracking in women between 25 and 65 years from population of Hospital San Jorge area (Huesca). We conduct 1028 surveys in different spheres, classifying women in four age groups: 25-34 years, 35-44, 45-54 and 55-65. The items to study includes: different techniques of screening, their objective, efficacy, frequency, reason of nonfulfillment, date of last cytology, possibility of self-sampling and origin of the information.


Results

From 1028 women who made the survey, 258 (25.1 %) were between 25-34 years old, 269 (26.2%) 35-44 years, 250 (24.3%) 45-54 years and 251 (24.4%) 55-65 years, with an average of 44 ± 11.6 years. 36.6% of women fulfil the period of 3 years between each cytology. 3.3% of women had never started the screening, and particularly the percentage increase to 7.4% in the youngest group age, finding significant differences with the rest of groups.  53.3% of women had get the last cytology less than a year ago. The principle reasons for not fulfil the screening was because they thought not needing it (49.9%), and the ignorance of the existence of a screening program (24.6%). 70.5% is in favour of a self-sampling program. 87.7% think cervical cancer is preventable with the screening program and 83% of women know that this screening can diagnose precancerous lesions. However, 28.8% of women do not know the exact objective of the screening program and 64.9% of women didn´t know what other kind of cancers have a screening program. 33.7% received information from their gynaecologists, 4.6% from their midwifes and 25.8% have no information.


Conclusion

Cytology is a widespread technique in population; however, there are differences in the tracking of protocol. The information about the objective of the screening and the importance in the fulfilment could improve with collaboration of professionals, as much from gynaecologists as from midwifes.


References