R Saulle1, A Sinopoli1, A De Paula Baer2, A Mannocci1, M Marino3, A G De Belvis3, A Federici4, G La Torre1. 1. Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 2. Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy - Faculty of medicine, University of São Paulo, Brasil. 3. Department of Public Health, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome. 4. Ministero della Salute, Direzione Generale della Prevenzione, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
OBJETCTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the scientific literature concerning the use of the Precede-Proceed model (PPM) applied to educational programs and health screenings contextsV. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: The search process was based on a selection of publications listed in Medline and Scopus. The keywords used were "Precede-Proceed" AND ("screening" OR "educational programs"). Studies included in the systematic review were subdivided into those applying the model in a screening context, and those applying it within educational programs. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were retrieved, mostly performed in the USA and, generally, the promoting center was the University. In the context of cancer screening, the PPM model was most of all applied to Mammography Screening (5 of 13 studies in cancer screening), and Cervical Cancer Screening (5 of 13). Another three studies within the cancer field investigated Menopause-Inducing Cancer Treatments, Oral cancer prevention, and cancer screening in general. In the remaining studies, the model was applied in various screening areas, particularly chronic and degenerative diseases. There were many different study designs, most of which cross-sectional (8), though several RTCs (8) and focus groups (5) were also found. For the cross-sectional studies the methodological quality varied between 3/10 and 9/10, whilst for the RCTs it ranged from 2/5 to 3/5. CONCLUSIONS: The PPM provides an excellent framework for health intervention programs especially in screening contexts, and could improve the understanding of the relationship between variables such as knowledge and screening. Given the complexity of a behavioral change process, certain important predisposing factors could be measured in future studies, and during health intervention planning.
OBJETCTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the scientific literature concerning the use of the Precede-Proceed model (PPM) applied to educational programs and health screenings contextsV. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: The search process was based on a selection of publications listed in Medline and Scopus. The keywords used were "Precede-Proceed" AND ("screening" OR "educational programs"). Studies included in the systematic review were subdivided into those applying the model in a screening context, and those applying it within educational programs. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were retrieved, mostly performed in the USA and, generally, the promoting center was the University. In the context of cancer screening, the PPM model was most of all applied to Mammography Screening (5 of 13 studies in cancer screening), and Cervical Cancer Screening (5 of 13). Another three studies within the cancer field investigated Menopause-Inducing Cancer Treatments, Oral cancer prevention, and cancer screening in general. In the remaining studies, the model was applied in various screening areas, particularly chronic and degenerative diseases. There were many different study designs, most of which cross-sectional (8), though several RTCs (8) and focus groups (5) were also found. For the cross-sectional studies the methodological quality varied between 3/10 and 9/10, whilst for the RCTs it ranged from 2/5 to 3/5. CONCLUSIONS: The PPM provides an excellent framework for health intervention programs especially in screening contexts, and could improve the understanding of the relationship between variables such as knowledge and screening. Given the complexity of a behavioral change process, certain important predisposing factors could be measured in future studies, and during health intervention planning.
Authors: Hind Bitar; Amal Babour; Fatema Nafa; Ohoud Alzamzami; Sarah Alismail Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Rafael Guerrero-Preston; Vanessa Rivera-Amill; Karem Caraballo; Sebastian Rodríguez-Torres; Ana Purcell-Wiltz; Andrea A García; Raphael S Torres; Fernando T Zamuner; Claudio Zanettini; Matthew J MacKay; Rachel Baits; Daisy Salgado; Gaurav Khullar; Jessica Metti; Timothy Baker; Joel Dudley; Keilyn Vale; Gabriela Pérez; Lorena De Jesús; Yaima Miranda; Denise Ortiz; Amanda García-Negrón; Liliana Viera; Alberto Ortiz; Jorge A Canabal; Josefina Romaguera; Ivonne Jiménez-Velázquez; Luigi Marchionni; José F Rodríguez-Orengo; Adriana Baez; Christopher E Mason; David Sidransky Journal: Immun Inflamm Dis Date: 2022-06
Authors: Rauf Nouni-García; Ángela Lara-López; Concepción Carratalá-Munuera; Vicente F Gil-Guillén; Adriana López-Pineda; Domingo Orozco-Beltrán; Jose A Quesada Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Lisa V Rubenstein; Ian M Kronish; Rebekah J Walker; Luci K Leykum; Michael K Ong; Steven M Asch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-04 Impact factor: 5.128