Knowledge and Perception on Lung Cancer and Its Screening: A Study among Undergraduate Students of the International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuantan Campus
Keywords:
Lung cancer, knowledge, perception.Abstract
Lung cancer is the second most common contributor to overall cancer–associated death in Malaysia after breast cancer. Many cases of late diagnosis are because patients failed to recognize the symptoms and poor awareness of signs, symptoms and nature of the disease. Objective: The general objective of this research is to evaluate the knowledge on lung cancer and perception on its screening among IIUM Kuantan students. Method: This is a cross-sectional study whereby convenient sampling was used as the sampling method strategy. Knowledge and perception scores were analyzed using descriptive statistics by denoting it in terms of frequency and percentages. Tests such as independent t-test, one-way ANOVA, Mann-Whitney and Pearson correlation tests were used to find the association of gender, kulliyyah (faculty), marital status, as well as age and year of study with knowledge and perception of students. Association between knowledge of lung cancer with perception of its screening was also evaluated using Pearson correlation test. Results: Most of IIUM Kuantan students portrayed good level of knowledge and perception. Socio-demographic factors that were significantly associated with students’ knowledge include age (p=0.001), year of study (p<0.001) and kulliyyah (p<0.001); whereas, only kulliyyah is significantly associated with students’ perception (p=0.008). Besides, students’ level of knowledge is significantly associated with their perception (p<0.001, r=0.326). Conclusion: Overall, the general knowledge of students regarding lung cancer and their perception towards lung cancer screening is good. Students with greater knowledge express better perception towards lung cancer screening.References
C. S. Lathan, C. Okechukwu, B. F. Drake & G. G. Bennet. (2010, April). Racial differences in the perception of lung cancer: the 2005 Health Information National Trends Survey. Cancer. [Print]. 116(8), pp.1981–1986.
K. C. Siang & C. K. M. John. (2016, June). A review of lung cancer research in malaysia. Medical J Malaysia. [Print]. 71(1), pp. 70-78.
D. R. Aberle, A. M. Adams, C. D. Berg, W. C. Black, J. D. Clap, R. M. Fragerstrom, I. F. Gareen, C. Gatsonis, P.M. Marcus & J. D. Sicks.(2011, Aug.). Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. New English Journal of Medicine. [Print]. 365(5), pp. 395–409.
S. Jonnalagadda, C. Bergamo, J. J. Lin, L. Lurslurchachai, M. Diefenbach, C. Smith, J. E. Nelson & J. P. Wisnivesky. (2012, Jun). Belief and attitude about lung cancer screening among smokers. Lung Cancer. [Print]. 77(3), pp. 526–531.
A. R. Al-Naggar. (2012, March). Knowledge and practice towards lung cancer among university students. Journal of Community Medicine & Health Education. [Print]. 2(3), pp. 1-5.
A. R. Al-Naggar & S. Kadir. (2013, Jan.). Lung cancer knowledge among secondary school male teachers in kudat, sabah, malaysia. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. [Print]. 14(1), pp. 103-109.
A. E. Flynn, M. J. Peters & C. Morgan. (2013, June). Attitude regarding LC screening in Australian high risk population. Lung Cancer International. [Print]. 2013 (2013), pp. 1-7.
J. K. Cataldo. (2016, April). High-risk older smokers’ perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs about lung cancer screening. Cancer Medicine. [Print]. 5(4), pp. 753–759.
M. Leitzmann, H. Powers, A. S. Anderson, C. Scoccianti, F. Berrino, M. C. Boutran-Ruault, M. Cecchini, C. Espina, T. J. Key, T. Norat, M. Wiseman & I. Romieu. (2015, Dec.). European code against Cancer 4th Edition: Physical activity and cancer. Cancer Epidemiology. [Print]. 39(1), pp. s246-s55.
M. M. Kofahi & L. G. Haddad. (2005, Jul.). Perceptions of lung cancer and smoking among college students in jordan. Journal of Transcultural Nursing. [Print] 16(3), pp. 245-254.
P. Khatiwada, S. R. Kayastha, P. Pant, K. R. Khanal, A. Giri, P. Khatiwoda & A. Mali. (2012, Sep.). Understanding of tobacco and lung cancer among Medical Students in Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences (KUSMS). Kathmandu University Medical Journal. [Print].3(39), pp. 60-65.
O. O. Desalu, A. E. Fawibe, E. O. Sanya, O. B. Ojuawo, A. O. Aladesanmi m& A. K. Salami. (2016, April). Lung cancer awareness and anticipated delay before seeking medical help in the middle-belt population of Nigeria. International Journal of Lung Disease. [Print]. 20(4), pp. 560-556.
J. L. Freudenheim, J. Ritz, & S. A. Smith-Warner. (2015, Sep.). Alcohol consumption and risk of lung cancer: a pooled analysis of cohort studies. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. [Print] 82(3), pp. 657-667.
E. S. Alice, D. Juszyk & N. Smyth. (2012, Sep.). Knowledge on lung cancer symptoms and risk factors in the UK: development of a measure and results from a population-based survey. Thorax. [Print]. 67(5), pp. 1-7.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
JBCS Publication Ethics
JBCS is committed to ensure the publication process follows specific academic ethics. Hence, Authors, Reviewers and Editors are required to conform to standards of ethical guidelines.
Authors
Authors should discuss objectively the significance of research work, technical detail and relevant references to enable others to replicate the experiments. JBCS do not accept fraudulent or inaccurate statements that may constitute towards unethical conduct.
Authors should ensure the originality of their works. In cases where the work and/or words of others have been used, appropriate acknowledgements should be made. JBCS do not accept plagiarism in all forms that constitute towards unethical publishing of an article.
This includes simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal. Corresponding author is responsible for the full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Reviewers
Reviewers of JBCS treat manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. Therefore, Reviewers must ensure the confidentiality and should not use privileged information and/or ideas obtained through peer review for personal advantage.
Reviews should be conducted based on academic merit and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments. In cases where selected Reviewer feels unqualified to review a manuscript, Reviewer should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process in TWO (2) weeks time from the review offer is made.
In any reasonable circumstances, Reviewers should not consider to evaluate manuscripts if they have conflicts of interest (i.e: competitive, collaborative and/or other connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions affiliated to the papers).
Editors
Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit. JBCS strictly do not allow editors to use unpublished information of authors without the written consent of the author. Editors are required to take appropriate responsive actions if ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences requires authors to declare all competing interests in relation to their work. All submitted manuscripts must include a ‘competing interests section at the end of the manuscript listing all competing interests (financial and non-financial). Where authors have no competing interests, the statement should read ,The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Editors may ask for further information relating to competing interests.
Editors and reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests and will be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists. Competing interests may be financial or non-financial. A competing interest exists when the authors interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by their personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Authors should disclose any financial competing interests but also any non-financial competing interests that may cause them embarrassment if they were to become public after the publication of the article.
HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
All research must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. If there is suspicion that work has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, Editors will follow the Misconduct policy and may reject the manuscript, and/or contact the author(s) institution or ethics committee. On rare occasions, if the Editor has serious concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.
Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate, must appear in all manuscripts reporting such research. Further information and documentation to support this should be made available to Editors on request.
Experimental research on vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The Basel Declaration outlines fundamental principles to adhere to when conducting research in animals and the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) has also published ethical guidelines.
A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines (e.g. the revised Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK and Directive 2010/63/EU in Europe) and/or ethical approval (including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate) must be included in the manuscript. The Editor will take account of animal welfare issues and reserves the right to reject a manuscript, especially if the research involves protocols that are inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of animal research. In rare cases, Editors may contact the ethics committee for further information.
INFORMED CONSENT
For all research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript, this includes to all manuscripts that include details, images, or videos relating to individual participants.
DATA SHARING POLICY
JBCS strongly encourages that all datasets on which the conclusions of the paper rely should be available to readers. We encourage authors to ensure that their datasets are either deposited in publicly available repositories (where available and appropriate) or presented in the main manuscript or additional supporting files, in machine-readable format (such as spreadsheets rather than PDFs) whenever possible
Authors who do not wish to share their data must state that data will not be shared, and give the reason.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The JBCS retains the copyright of published manuscripts under the terms of the Copyright Transfer Agreement. However, the journal permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided permission to reuse, distribute and reproduce is obtained from the Journal's Editor and the original work is properly cited.
While the advice and information in this journal are believed to be true and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither the authors, the editors, nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.
Copyright (c) 2023 Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (JBCS)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
