OBJECTIVES: To assess cervical cancer screening behaviors among underserved women participating in an intervention designed to increase mammography use. METHODS: This was a randomized trial of 897 women from three racial groups (white, African American, Native American) living in a rural county in North Carolina. Baseline and followup surveys were completed by 815 women; 775 women provided data to be included in these analyses. The intervention group received an educational program focused on mammography delivered by a lay health advisor, and the control group received a physician letter/brochure focusing on Pap tests. RESULTS: Women in both the intervention (OR 1.70; 1.31, 2.21, p < 0.001) and control groups (OR 1.38; 1.04, 1.82, p = 0.025) significantly increased cervical cancer screening rates within risk appropriate guidelines. No differences by racial group were documented. Women categorized in the high-risk group for developing cervical cancer (>2 sexual partners, age <18 years at first sexual intercourse, smoker; treated for sexually transmitted disease [STD] or partner with treated STD) significantly (OR 1.88; 1.54, 2.28, p < 0.001) increased Pap test completion. However, a nonsignificant increase (OR 1.25; 0.87, 1.79, p = 0.221) in Pap test completion was demonstrated in women categorized as low risk for cervical cancer. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that women in an intensive behavioral intervention designed to increase mammography use may also increase Pap test completion, similar to a minimal intervention focused only on increasing Pap test completion. These results have implications for the design and evaluation of behavioral intervention studies.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To assess cervical cancer screening behaviors among underserved women participating in an intervention designed to increase mammography use. METHODS: This was a randomized trial of 897 women from three racial groups (white, African American, Native American) living in a rural county in North Carolina. Baseline and followup surveys were completed by 815 women; 775 women provided data to be included in these analyses. The intervention group received an educational program focused on mammography delivered by a lay health advisor, and the control group received a physician letter/brochure focusing on Pap tests. RESULTS:Women in both the intervention (OR 1.70; 1.31, 2.21, p < 0.001) and control groups (OR 1.38; 1.04, 1.82, p = 0.025) significantly increased cervical cancer screening rates within risk appropriate guidelines. No differences by racial group were documented. Women categorized in the high-risk group for developing cervical cancer (>2 sexual partners, age <18 years at first sexual intercourse, smoker; treated for sexually transmitted disease [STD] or partner with treated STD) significantly (OR 1.88; 1.54, 2.28, p < 0.001) increased Pap test completion. However, a nonsignificant increase (OR 1.25; 0.87, 1.79, p = 0.221) in Pap test completion was demonstrated in women categorized as low risk for cervical cancer. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that women in an intensive behavioral intervention designed to increase mammography use may also increase Pap test completion, similar to a minimal intervention focused only on increasing Pap test completion. These results have implications for the design and evaluation of behavioral intervention studies.
Authors: Lee S Caplan; David V McQueen; Judith R Qualters; Marilyn Leff; Carol Garrett; Ned Calonge Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: K Robin Yabroff; William F Lawrence; Jason C King; Patricia Mangan; Kathleen Shakira Washington; Bin Yi; Jon F Kerner; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2005 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: R W Jeffery; J L Forster; S A French; S H Kelder; H A Lando; P G McGovern; D R Jacobs; J E Baxter Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1993-03 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: J Hsia; E Kemper; C Kiefe; J Zapka; S Sofaer; M Pettinger; D Bowen; M Limacher; L Lillington; E Mason Journal: Prev Med Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: P L Pirie; C M McBride; W Hellerstedt; R W Jeffery; D Hatsukami; S Allen; H Lando Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1992-09 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Mira L Katz; Paul L Reiter; Gregory S Young; Michael L Pennell; Cathy M Tatum; Electra D Paskett Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Wambui G Gathirua-Mwangi; Patrick O Monahan; Timothy Stump; Susan M Rawl; Celette Sugg Skinner; Victoria L Champion Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2016-02
Authors: Victoria L Champion; Shannon M Christy; William Rakowski; Wambui G Gathirua-Mwangi; Will L Tarver; Lisa Carter-Harris; Andrea A Cohee; Andrew R Marley; Nenette M Jessup; Erika Biederman; Carla D Kettler; Timothy E Stump; Patrick Monahan; David R Lairson; Susan M Rawl Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Thomas Everett; Andrew Bryant; Michelle F Griffin; Pierre Pl Martin-Hirsch; Carol A Forbes; Ruth G Jepson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2011-05-11
Authors: Lorna H McNeill; Molly Coeling; Elaine Puleo; Elizabeth Gonzalez Suarez; Gary G Bennett; Karen M Emmons Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-09-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Ana Laura Calderón-Garcidueñas; Yolanda Flores-Peña; Silvia De León-Leal; Carlos Alberto Vázquez-Martínez; Ana Gabriela Farías-Calderón; Guadalupe Melo-Santiesteban; Rosa María Elizondo-Zapién; Dulce María Hernandez-Hernandez; Rubén Garza-Moya; Ricardo Martín Cerda-Flores Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2015-04-09
Authors: Katherine B Roland; Erin L Milliken; Elizabeth A Rohan; Amy DeGroff; Susan White; Stephanie Melillo; William E Rorie; Carmita-Anita C Signes; Paul A Young Journal: Health Equity Date: 2017-05-01