Two thirds of British women do not know that a cervical smear test is designed to prevent cancer - according to a new survey by Cancer Research UK.
Such widespread ignorance about a screening test that saves thousands of lives each year is alarming. And it is particularly worrying that the 1575 people surveyed were within the 25-64 age bracket when women are regularly invited for cervical screening.
Dr Lesley Walker, director of cancer information at Cancer Research UK, said: "The purpose of the cervical smear is all about prevention. The test detects any abnormal cells that could become cancerous and follow-up treatment will prevent cancer developing.
"As part of Cancer Research UK's Reduce the Risk campaign we are urging women to go for regular screening checks when they are invited. We know that only 50 per cent of women of all ages are aware that a national cervical screening programme exists while 90 per cent know about breast screening.
"It is vitally important to get the message out that screening saves lives because the number of cases of cervical cancer has dropped dramatically since widespread screening was introduced."
Before the national screening programme was introduced the death rate from cervical cancer among British women under 35 was among the highest in the developed world. Only Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania had higher rates than the UK.
Between 1967 and 1987 cervical cancer death rates in Britain trebled.
Since the national screening programme began in 1988 the trend has reversed. It is calculated that the screening programme is today saving more than 1,000 lives each year.
The survey also revealed that almost a quarter of women questioned did not associate the smear test specifically with cancer.
But even among those women who realised the smear test was connected with cancer there was a basic misconception: they thought the test was designed to detect cancer rather than to pick up a potentially pre-cancerous condition.
Dr Walker added: "It is extremely important that women understand this difference. If they think the test only detects cancer they may fear to go for regular checks. It is important to reassure women that cervical screening is designed to prevent cancer developing. Before screening the UK was set to see thousands more women dying from cervical cancer."
Almost 3,000 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in the UK each year. It can affect women of any age who are, or once were, sexually active and is the second most common cancer in women under 35.
Scientists have linked nearly all cases of cervical cancer to human papillomavirus or HPV. Most sexually active women will be infected with HPV at some point as it is very common but the virus usually clears up on its own.
If HPV persists it can lead to changes in the cells of the cervix that may lead to cancer if left untreated. Cervical screening detects these early changes and the abnormal cells can then be removed thereby preventing cancer developing.
You can download a leaflet about reducing your risk of getting cervical cancer . Or send a stamped addressed envelope to CC Prevention, Cancer Information Department, Cancer Research UK, PO Box 123, London WC2A 3PX.
Half of all cancers could be prevented by changes to lifestyle. Cancer Research UK's Reduce the Risk campaign urges people to go for screening when invited. "In the case of cervical screening early detection of abnormalities will ultimately save thousands of lives."
infoncerresearchuk/healthyliving/reducetherisk
cancerresearchuk
вторник, 28 февраля 2012 г.
вторник, 21 февраля 2012 г.
Angina, A Common Form Of Heart Disease, Is More Dangerous For Women Than Was Previously Thought
Angina, a common form of heart disease, is more dangerous for women than was previously thought, according to a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The collaborative study, led by UCL (University College London) and funded by the British Heart Foundation, found that angina in women is as common as it is in men, in contrast to heart attacks (myocardial infarction) which have a higher rate in men. The findings suggest that the medical profession should pay more attention to thoroughly investigating and diagnosing women suspected of having angina.
UCL Professor Harry Hemingway and colleagues studied over 100,000 patients aged 45-89 years with angina using electronic health records. They found that each year, two women out of every 100 in the general population developed angina, as the first sign of heart disease. This makes angina much more common than heart attacks (the risks of which are usually measured per 1,000 population).
The study also found that for women, the diagnosis of angina is less frequently confirmed with tests, such as angiograms or treadmill exercise electrocardiograms. In the patients in the study, drug treatment aimed at relieving angina (nitrates) was prescribed solely on the basis of symptom history.
In the study, angina in women was also associated with increased death rates, where women diagnosed without the confirmatory test had significantly higher death rates from heart disease. Such women have often been dismissed as having a 'soft' subjective complaint, without real pathological changes in the heart. The study suggests that this attitude is incorrect.
Among women with angina and diabetes, the annual risk of a heart attack was particularly high and similar to the risk in men (about one in 10).
Professor Hemingway, from the UCL Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, says: "For women, angina is a more significant public health problem than many doctors, or indeed the general public, realise. Women develop angina at a similarly high rate as men. And the angina which women experience is not benign in terms of death rates. We need to understand why women are relatively protected from heart attack but not from angina, and ensure fair access to investigation and treatment services.
"Angina has been a Cinderella in heart disease research because of the difficulties in establishing which patients have angina - many people with symptoms are not tested - and because most patients are not hospitalised. The opposite is true for heart attacks, where nearly all patients are tested to confirm the diagnosis and are admitted as an emergency into hospital."
Angina is a symptom of chest pain or discomfort which is brought on by exercise (or cold or emotional stress) and relieved by rest. These symptoms are due to the supply of oxygen to the heart muscle (myocardium) being insufficient to meet demand (so called myocardial ischaemia). Narrowing and hardening of the blood vessels which supply oxygen to the heart muscle causes angina. Atherosclerosis is the cause of the narrowing and hardening of the coronary (heart) arteries.
Angina is more likely to occur in people who have one or more of the following risk factors: older age, smoking, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, family history.
Angina can be prevented by lifestyle changes (stopping smoking, increasing exercise) and by lowering blood pressure and cholesterol. The symptoms of angina can be relieved with medication (such as nitrates or beta-blockers) and by undergoing a coronary revascularisation procedure. The risk of having a heart attack after having experienced angina can be reduced by taking 'secondary prevention' medications such as aspirin and lipid lowering drugs. There is no cure for the underlying disease process of atherosclerosis.
Contact: Jenny Gimpel
j.gimpelucl.ac
University College London
UCL Professor Harry Hemingway and colleagues studied over 100,000 patients aged 45-89 years with angina using electronic health records. They found that each year, two women out of every 100 in the general population developed angina, as the first sign of heart disease. This makes angina much more common than heart attacks (the risks of which are usually measured per 1,000 population).
The study also found that for women, the diagnosis of angina is less frequently confirmed with tests, such as angiograms or treadmill exercise electrocardiograms. In the patients in the study, drug treatment aimed at relieving angina (nitrates) was prescribed solely on the basis of symptom history.
In the study, angina in women was also associated with increased death rates, where women diagnosed without the confirmatory test had significantly higher death rates from heart disease. Such women have often been dismissed as having a 'soft' subjective complaint, without real pathological changes in the heart. The study suggests that this attitude is incorrect.
Among women with angina and diabetes, the annual risk of a heart attack was particularly high and similar to the risk in men (about one in 10).
Professor Hemingway, from the UCL Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, says: "For women, angina is a more significant public health problem than many doctors, or indeed the general public, realise. Women develop angina at a similarly high rate as men. And the angina which women experience is not benign in terms of death rates. We need to understand why women are relatively protected from heart attack but not from angina, and ensure fair access to investigation and treatment services.
"Angina has been a Cinderella in heart disease research because of the difficulties in establishing which patients have angina - many people with symptoms are not tested - and because most patients are not hospitalised. The opposite is true for heart attacks, where nearly all patients are tested to confirm the diagnosis and are admitted as an emergency into hospital."
Angina is a symptom of chest pain or discomfort which is brought on by exercise (or cold or emotional stress) and relieved by rest. These symptoms are due to the supply of oxygen to the heart muscle (myocardium) being insufficient to meet demand (so called myocardial ischaemia). Narrowing and hardening of the blood vessels which supply oxygen to the heart muscle causes angina. Atherosclerosis is the cause of the narrowing and hardening of the coronary (heart) arteries.
Angina is more likely to occur in people who have one or more of the following risk factors: older age, smoking, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, family history.
Angina can be prevented by lifestyle changes (stopping smoking, increasing exercise) and by lowering blood pressure and cholesterol. The symptoms of angina can be relieved with medication (such as nitrates or beta-blockers) and by undergoing a coronary revascularisation procedure. The risk of having a heart attack after having experienced angina can be reduced by taking 'secondary prevention' medications such as aspirin and lipid lowering drugs. There is no cure for the underlying disease process of atherosclerosis.
Contact: Jenny Gimpel
j.gimpelucl.ac
University College London
вторник, 14 февраля 2012 г.
Public Should Know Views Of Supreme Court Candidates, Opinion Piece Says
The next Supreme Court justice to replace retiring Justice David Souter, as well as the confirmation process, "should represent a clear break with the policies" of former President George W. Bush, Kate Michelman, NARAL Pro-Choice America president from 1985 to 2004, writes in a Philadelphia Inquirer opinion piece. She adds, "The clearest sign that President Obama is committed to the demand for change would be the nomination of a justice who is committed to forthrightly and unapologetically defending America's fundamental liberties," including a "commitment to the constitutional rights to privacy and equality that found crucial meaning and historic expression for women in Roe v. Wade."
Obama has indicated that he believes in these rights, and it is likely that he will choose a nominee who also does; however, the U.S. public might never know what the nominee believes because of "the conspiracy of silence that governs judicial nominations," according to Michelman. She writes that the "generally accepted 'rules'" of judicial nominations -- in which presidents "promise not to apply 'litmus tests,'" and nominees pledge to be silent on cases and precedents -- should change, adding, "We should no more confirm a nominee who refuses to discuss these fundamental rights than one who claims to have no position on the rights to free speech, freedom of religion or jury trials."
According to Michelman, the "reality" is that presidents "do consider the concrete judicial views of potential nominees. Bush did. Obama will. They would be irresponsible if they did not." Supreme Court nominees would not be qualified to be on the court if they did not have "opinions on issues they claim they are compelled not to discuss." While this is well-known, "confirmation debates are conducted in a theater of shadows," she continues, adding that the "American people are denied forthright knowledge about an irreversible appointment to an institution whose impact on their lives is immense." Although justices should be neutral toward cases and the people involved, Americans are "entitled to know what he or she thinks" about the Constitution, which they take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend." She continues that Obama "is correct that jurists must also understand the effect of their decisions on the lives of real people," an effect that "weighs especially heavily on the women whom the court has required to clear higher and increasingly intrusive hurdles to act on their freedom to choose."
Michelman writes that Supreme Court nominees "seek appointment to a court from which he or she could turn those thoughts into constitutional precedent the nation will be compelled to accept, without appeal, for decades or longer." She concludes, "The only question in this nomination process will be whether the country will be allowed to know what the nominee's thoughts are. That is one basic right everyone should be able to agree we have" (Michelman, Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/11).
Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Obama has indicated that he believes in these rights, and it is likely that he will choose a nominee who also does; however, the U.S. public might never know what the nominee believes because of "the conspiracy of silence that governs judicial nominations," according to Michelman. She writes that the "generally accepted 'rules'" of judicial nominations -- in which presidents "promise not to apply 'litmus tests,'" and nominees pledge to be silent on cases and precedents -- should change, adding, "We should no more confirm a nominee who refuses to discuss these fundamental rights than one who claims to have no position on the rights to free speech, freedom of religion or jury trials."
According to Michelman, the "reality" is that presidents "do consider the concrete judicial views of potential nominees. Bush did. Obama will. They would be irresponsible if they did not." Supreme Court nominees would not be qualified to be on the court if they did not have "opinions on issues they claim they are compelled not to discuss." While this is well-known, "confirmation debates are conducted in a theater of shadows," she continues, adding that the "American people are denied forthright knowledge about an irreversible appointment to an institution whose impact on their lives is immense." Although justices should be neutral toward cases and the people involved, Americans are "entitled to know what he or she thinks" about the Constitution, which they take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend." She continues that Obama "is correct that jurists must also understand the effect of their decisions on the lives of real people," an effect that "weighs especially heavily on the women whom the court has required to clear higher and increasingly intrusive hurdles to act on their freedom to choose."
Michelman writes that Supreme Court nominees "seek appointment to a court from which he or she could turn those thoughts into constitutional precedent the nation will be compelled to accept, without appeal, for decades or longer." She concludes, "The only question in this nomination process will be whether the country will be allowed to know what the nominee's thoughts are. That is one basic right everyone should be able to agree we have" (Michelman, Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/11).
Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
вторник, 7 февраля 2012 г.
UK Government Is Failing Sex Workers
The UK government is failing sex workers by continuing to promote discriminatory laws and practices, argue experts in this week's BMJ.
Professor Michael Goodyear and Dr Linda Cusick call on the prime minister to protect women by decriminalising all aspects of sex work now.
Sex workers around the world continue to be murdered, write Professor Goodyear of Dalhousie University, Canada and Dr Cusick of the University of Paisley, Scotland. The five young women killed in Suffolk last month raised questions about our collective duty to protect such women and how best to achieve it.
Governments and health and social services have a duty of care without discrimination, yet they argue that UK government policies discriminate against the most disadvantaged.
Criminalisation of prostitution limits access to health and social care and contravenes United Nations' guidelines on human rights. "Only by moving prostitution out of the criminal justice system and focusing on public health and social care can we provide optimum support and help break the cycle of violence," they say.
The status quo in the UK is unacceptable moral cowardice, they add. The prime minister has opposed reform and stalled demands for the protection of women; he must show leadership and restore human rights by decriminalising all aspects of sex work now.
They believe that the deaths of Gemma Adams, Tania Nicol, Anneli Alderton, Paula Clennell, and Annette Nicholls were almost inevitable. "They deserved better, but we failed them. We will honour them best by now doing the right thing."
Contact: Emma Dickinson
BMJ-British Medical Journal
Professor Michael Goodyear and Dr Linda Cusick call on the prime minister to protect women by decriminalising all aspects of sex work now.
Sex workers around the world continue to be murdered, write Professor Goodyear of Dalhousie University, Canada and Dr Cusick of the University of Paisley, Scotland. The five young women killed in Suffolk last month raised questions about our collective duty to protect such women and how best to achieve it.
Governments and health and social services have a duty of care without discrimination, yet they argue that UK government policies discriminate against the most disadvantaged.
Criminalisation of prostitution limits access to health and social care and contravenes United Nations' guidelines on human rights. "Only by moving prostitution out of the criminal justice system and focusing on public health and social care can we provide optimum support and help break the cycle of violence," they say.
The status quo in the UK is unacceptable moral cowardice, they add. The prime minister has opposed reform and stalled demands for the protection of women; he must show leadership and restore human rights by decriminalising all aspects of sex work now.
They believe that the deaths of Gemma Adams, Tania Nicol, Anneli Alderton, Paula Clennell, and Annette Nicholls were almost inevitable. "They deserved better, but we failed them. We will honour them best by now doing the right thing."
Contact: Emma Dickinson
BMJ-British Medical Journal
Подписаться на:
Комментарии (Atom)