Joelle I Rosser1, Betty Njoroge2, Megan J Huchko3. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. Electronic address: joelleir@u.washington.edu. 2. Centre for Microbiology Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Nairobi, Kenya. 3. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cervical cancer screening uptake may be influenced by inadequate knowledge in resource-limited settings. This randomized trial evaluated a health talk's impact on cervical cancer knowledge, attitudes, and screening rates in rural Kenya. METHODS:419 women attending government clinics were randomized to an intervention (N=207) or control (N=212) group. The intervention was a brief health talk on cervical cancer. Participants completed surveys at enrollment (all), immediately after the talk (intervention arm), and at three-months follow-up (all). The primary outcomes were the change in knowledge scores and the final screening rates at three-months follow-up. Secondary outcomes were changes in awareness about cervical cancer screening, perception of personal cervical cancer risk, cervical cancer and HIV stigma, and screening acceptability. RESULTS:Mean Knowledge Scores increased by 26.4% (8.7 points increased to 11.0 points) in the intervention arm compared to only 17.6% (8.5 points increased to 10.0 points) in the control arm (p<0.01). Screening uptake was moderate in both the intervention (58.9%; N=122) and control (60.9%; N=129) arms, with no difference between the groups (p=0.60). CONCLUSION: A brief health talk increased cervical cancer knowledge, although it did not increase screening over simply informing women about free screening. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Screening programs can increase patient understanding with just a brief educational intervention.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE:Cervical cancer screening uptake may be influenced by inadequate knowledge in resource-limited settings. This randomized trial evaluated a health talk's impact on cervical cancer knowledge, attitudes, and screening rates in rural Kenya. METHODS: 419 women attending government clinics were randomized to an intervention (N=207) or control (N=212) group. The intervention was a brief health talk on cervical cancer. Participants completed surveys at enrollment (all), immediately after the talk (intervention arm), and at three-months follow-up (all). The primary outcomes were the change in knowledge scores and the final screening rates at three-months follow-up. Secondary outcomes were changes in awareness about cervical cancer screening, perception of personal cervical cancer risk, cervical cancer and HIV stigma, and screening acceptability. RESULTS: Mean Knowledge Scores increased by 26.4% (8.7 points increased to 11.0 points) in the intervention arm compared to only 17.6% (8.5 points increased to 10.0 points) in the control arm (p<0.01). Screening uptake was moderate in both the intervention (58.9%; N=122) and control (60.9%; N=129) arms, with no difference between the groups (p=0.60). CONCLUSION: A brief health talk increased cervical cancer knowledge, although it did not increase screening over simply informing women about free screening. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Screening programs can increase patient understanding with just a brief educational intervention.
Authors: Maricianah Onono; Cinthia Blat; Sondra Miles; Rachel Steinfeld; Pauline Wekesa; Elizabeth A Bukusi; Kevin Owuor; Daniel Grossman; Craig R Cohen; Sara J Newmann Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2013-11-28
Authors: Craig R Cohen; Michele Montandon; Adam W Carrico; Stephen Shiboski; Alan Bostrom; Alfredo Obure; Zachary Kwena; Robert C Bailey; Rosemary Nguti; Elizabeth A Bukusi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Brooke A Jarrett; Daniel M Woznica; Carla Tilchin; Nthabiseng Mpungose; Katlego Motlhaoleng; Jonathan E Golub; Neil A Martinson; Colleen F Hanrahan Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2020-04
Authors: Jonah Musa; Chad J Achenbach; Linda C O'Dwyer; Charlesnika T Evans; Megan McHugh; Lifang Hou; Melissa A Simon; Robert L Murphy; Neil Jordan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Rosa Catarino; Pierre Vassilakos; Stefano Scaringella; Manuela Undurraga-Malinverno; Ulrike Meyer-Hamme; Dominique Ricard-Gauthier; Juan Carlos Matute; Patrick Petignat Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 3.240