Addressing multilevel barriers to cervical cancer screening in Korean American women: A randomized trial of a community‐based intervention

BACKGROUND Korean American women have among the lowest rates of cervical cancer screening in the United States. The authors evaluated a multicomponent intervention combining community education with navigation services to reduce access barriers and increase screening rates in this underserved popula...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cancer 2017-03, Vol.123 (6), p.1018-1026
Hauptverfasser: Fang, Carolyn Y., Ma, Grace X., Handorf, Elizabeth A., Feng, Ziding, Tan, Yin, Rhee, Joanne, Miller, Suzanne M., Kim, Charles, Koh, Han Seung
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:BACKGROUND Korean American women have among the lowest rates of cervical cancer screening in the United States. The authors evaluated a multicomponent intervention combining community education with navigation services to reduce access barriers and increase screening rates in this underserved population. It was hypothesized that cervical cancer screening rates would be higher among women who received the intervention program compared with those in the control program. METHODS Korean American women (N = 705) were recruited from 22 churches. In this matched‐pair, group‐randomized design, 347 women received the intervention, which consisted of a culturally relevant cancer education program combined with provision of navigation services. The control group (N = 358) received general health education, including information about cervical cancer risk and screening and where to obtain low‐cost or no‐cost screening. Screening behavior was assessed 12 months after the program. RESULTS Screening behavior data were obtained from 588 women 12 months after the program. In both site‐level and participant‐level analyses, the intervention program contributed to significantly higher screening rates compared with the control program (odds ratio [OR], 25.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.1‐66.1; P 
ISSN:0008-543X
1097-0142
DOI:10.1002/cncr.30391