Cross-sectional analysis reveals awareness gaps in breast cancer based on education and socioeconomic status in Karachi, indicating significant misconceptions.
Objective: This study aims to assess breast cancer awareness across different socioeconomic statuses, age groups, and regions while promoting awareness and educating the public about its signs, symptoms, and associated risk factors. Methodology: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Karachi, Pakistan, involving 602 participants from hospital outpatient departments, hospital employees, students, and the general public aged 18 and above. These people were not the patient of breast cancer. Data were collected using an online survey disseminated via Google Forms, and statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 25.1. Ethical considerations included obtaining informed consent, ensuring participant anonymity, and maintaining data confidentiality. Results: Women comprised 83.4% of the study population. The primary risk factors identified physical inactivity (56.6%). obesity (46.3%), smoking (50.5%). obesity (46.3%). Common misconceptions included beliefs that wearing bras increases breast cancer risk (51.3%) and that surgery exacerbates the condition (78.6%). The most frequently recognized symptoms were breast puckering (68.6%), discomfort (58%), and lumps (46.5%). Notably, higher education levels, particularly postgraduate education, were significantly associated with greater awareness of risk factors (p = 0.05). However, age did not have a significant impact on symptom recognition. Conclusion: The study highlights prevalent misconceptions regarding breast cancer and varying levels of awareness based on education and socioeconomic status. Key risk factors include obesity, smoking, inactivity, and ovarian cancer, with higher education linked to improved awareness. These findings emphasize the need for targeted awareness campaigns to address knowledge gaps and promote early detection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Javed et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: