BACKGROUND: Latinas have the highest rates of cervical cancer in the United States and the second highest rate of cervical cancer mortality. One factor in the disparity is the relatively low rate of screening for cervical cancer in this population. METHODS:Eligible women who were out of adherence with cervical cancer screening (>3 years since their last Papanicolaou [Pap] test) were identified via medical record review by a federally qualified local health center. The effects of a low-intensity intervention (video delivered to participants' homes; n = 150) and a high-intensity intervention (video plus a home-based educational session; n = 146) on cervical cancer screening uptake in comparison with a control arm (usual care; n = 147) were investigated. A cost-effectiveness analysis of the interventions was conducted: all intervention costs were calculated, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was computed. Finally, women with positive Pap tests were provided navigation by a community health educator to ensure that they received follow-up care. RESULTS:A total of 443 Latinas participated. Seven months after randomization, significantly more women in the high-intensity arm received a Pap test (53.4%) in comparison with the low-intensity arm (38.7%; P < .001) and the usual-care arm (34.0%; P < .01). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for high-intensity women versus the control group amounted to $4.24. Twelve women had positive Pap tests, which encompassed diagnoses ranging from atypical squamous cells of unknown significance to invasive cancer; these women received navigation for follow-up care. CONCLUSIONS: A culturally appropriate, in-home, promotora-led educational intervention was successful in increasing cervical cancer screening among Latinas. Cancer 2017;123:666-674.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Latinas have the highest rates of cervical cancer in the United States and the second highest rate of cervical cancer mortality. One factor in the disparity is the relatively low rate of screening for cervical cancer in this population. METHODS: Eligible women who were out of adherence with cervical cancer screening (>3 years since their last Papanicolaou [Pap] test) were identified via medical record review by a federally qualified local health center. The effects of a low-intensity intervention (video delivered to participants' homes; n = 150) and a high-intensity intervention (video plus a home-based educational session; n = 146) on cervical cancer screening uptake in comparison with a control arm (usual care; n = 147) were investigated. A cost-effectiveness analysis of the interventions was conducted: all intervention costs were calculated, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was computed. Finally, women with positive Pap tests were provided navigation by a community health educator to ensure that they received follow-up care. RESULTS: A total of 443 Latinas participated. Seven months after randomization, significantly more women in the high-intensity arm received a Pap test (53.4%) in comparison with the low-intensity arm (38.7%; P < .001) and the usual-care arm (34.0%; P < .01). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for high-intensity women versus the control group amounted to $4.24. Twelve women had positive Pap tests, which encompassed diagnoses ranging from atypical squamous cells of unknown significance to invasive cancer; these women received navigation for follow-up care. CONCLUSIONS: A culturally appropriate, in-home, promotora-led educational intervention was successful in increasing cervical cancer screening among Latinas. Cancer 2017;123:666-674.
Authors: Vicki B Benard; William Howe; Janet Royalty; William Helsel; William Kammerer; Lisa C Richardson Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2012-04-16 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Silvia Tejeda; Julie S Darnell; Young I Cho; Melinda R Stolley; Talar W Markossian; Elizabeth A Calhoun Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Jane R Montealegre; Renke Zhou; E Susan Amirian; Michele Follen; Michael E Scheurer Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2013-08-11 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Beti Thompson; Wendy E Barrington; Katherine J Briant; Erin Kupay; Elizabeth Carosso; Nora E Gonzalez; Virginia J Gonzalez Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: India J Ornelas; Khanh Ho; J Carey Jackson; Jaime Moo-Young; Anh Le; H Hoai Do; Bouapanh Lor; Maya Magarati; Ying Zhang; Victoria M Taylor Journal: Health Educ Behav Date: 2017-12-04
Authors: Cary Suzanne Lea; Carolina Perez-Heydrich; Andrea C Des Marais; Alice R Richman; Lynn Barclay; Noel T Brewer; Jennifer S Smith Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Giridhar Mohan; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Donatus U Ekwueme; Susan A Sabatino; Devon L Okasako-Schmucker; Yinan Peng; Shawna L Mercer; Anilkrishna B Thota Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Travis T Sims; Lauren E Colbert; Jiali Zheng; Andrea Y Delgado Medrano; Kristi L Hoffman; Lois Ramondetta; Amir Jazaeri; Anuja Jhingran; Kathleen M Schmeler; Carrie R Daniel; Ann Klopp Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: John S Luque; Ayaba Logan; Grace Soulen; Kent E Armeson; Danielle M Garrett; Caroline B Davila; Marvella E Ford Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 1.771