OBJECTIVE: This study describes rescreening following a prison cervical cancer screening intervention: the numbers of women who received rescreening during the three-year follow-up period; their timing of rescreening in relationship to intervention follow-up recommendations; and socio-demographic factors associated with rescreening. METHODS: Socio-demographic information was collected from Corrections Branch records. Clinical and risk factor information was obtained by a self-administered questionnaire. Pap screening histories were collected from Cervical Cancer Screening Program (CCSP) client records using the client ID number for Pap smears taken during the intervention period, during the three-year follow-up period, and during the 30-month period preceding the intervention period. Results were entered in Excel and responses summarized with frequency tables; bivariate analysis of categoric variables was done using chi-square tests of independence. RESULTS: During the three-year follow-up period, only 28 (21%) of 138 women who participated in a prison cervical cancer screening intervention were rescreened within 6 months of the recommendation received at intervention Pap test. Women with fewer than 5 multiple names (aliases) were more likely to be rescreened (p = 0.02). Educational level approached statistical significance (p = 0.05), with women with least education receiving highest rescreening. There was no relationship between rescreening and ethnicity, injection drug use, having borne children and current methadone treatment. CONCLUSION: Only 50% of women who participated in a specifically designed prison screening intervention were rescreened during the subsequent three years. Further work is needed to design, implement and evaluate follow-up initiatives of community cervical cancer screening programs for women who are at higher risk of developing cervical dysplasia.
OBJECTIVE: This study describes rescreening following a prison cervical cancer screening intervention: the numbers of women who received rescreening during the three-year follow-up period; their timing of rescreening in relationship to intervention follow-up recommendations; and socio-demographic factors associated with rescreening. METHODS: Socio-demographic information was collected from Corrections Branch records. Clinical and risk factor information was obtained by a self-administered questionnaire. Pap screening histories were collected from Cervical Cancer Screening Program (CCSP) client records using the client ID number for Pap smears taken during the intervention period, during the three-year follow-up period, and during the 30-month period preceding the intervention period. Results were entered in Excel and responses summarized with frequency tables; bivariate analysis of categoric variables was done using chi-square tests of independence. RESULTS: During the three-year follow-up period, only 28 (21%) of 138 women who participated in a prison cervical cancer screening intervention were rescreened within 6 months of the recommendation received at intervention Pap test. Women with fewer than 5 multiple names (aliases) were more likely to be rescreened (p = 0.02). Educational level approached statistical significance (p = 0.05), with women with least education receiving highest rescreening. There was no relationship between rescreening and ethnicity, injection drug use, having borne children and current methadone treatment. CONCLUSION: Only 50% of women who participated in a specifically designed prison screening intervention were rescreened during the subsequent three years. Further work is needed to design, implement and evaluate follow-up initiatives of community cervical cancer screening programs for women who are at higher risk of developing cervical dysplasia.
Authors: Victoria M Taylor; T Gregory Hislop; J Carey Jackson; Shin-Ping Tu; Yutaka Yasui; Stephen M Schwartz; Chong Teh; Alan Kuniyuki; Elizabeth Acorda; Ann Marchand; Beti Thompson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-05-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: S de Sanjosé; I Valls; M Paz Cañadas; B Lloveras; M J Quintana; K V Shah; F X Bosch Journal: Med Clin (Barc) Date: 2000-06-17 Impact factor: 1.725
Authors: Ruth Elwood Martin; T Gregory Hislop; Garry D Grams; Betty Calam; Elaine Jones; Veronika Moravan Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2004 Jul-Aug
Authors: Chelsea Salyer; Ashlyn Lipnicky; Meredith Bagwell-Gray; Jennifer Lorvick; Karen Cropsey; Megha Ramaswamy Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 3.390