| Literature DB >> 32689993 |
Sedighe Bab Eghbal1, Mahmood Karimy2, Parisa Kasmaei3, Zahra Atrkar Roshan4, Roghieh Valipour5, Seyedeh Maryam Attari1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is one of the major health problems and the third prevalent cancer in women all around the world. As a simple, inexpensive, and with no side-effects, Pap test is a reliable way to screen cervical cancer. This study aimed to investigate, the effects of educational intervention based on the Health Belief Model (HBM) on doing Pap smear tests among the rural women of the north of Iran.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical cancer; Education; Pap smear test; Screening
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32689993 PMCID: PMC7372794 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-020-01020-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Womens Health ISSN: 1472-6874 Impact factor: 2.809
Fig. 1Consort diagram of the participants
Details of educational content based on the HBM
| Educational sessions | HBM constructs | Teaching method | Objectives | Session content | Materials and teaching aids |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Session 1 | Knowledge | Lecture, Asking/answering questions | To increase the knowledge and create health awareness | Introduction, Signing a written consent consciously, Information about reproduction system anatomy, Age range to do the test, Symptoms and preventions | Slides, Pamphlet, Poster |
| Session 2 | Perceived sensitivity | Lecture, Asking/ answering questions | Misconceptions correction, Expressing seriousness, Risk of affliction as well as the negative consequences of cervical cancer in order to increase perceived severity | Consequences of failure to observe reproduction organs hygiene, Physical and emotional consequence of cervical cancer, The effects of cervical cancer on one’s job, family and chance of having children | Film, Pamphlet, Poster |
| Perceived severity | Lecture, Film, Asking/ answering questions | ||||
| Session 3 | Perceived barriers | Group discussion, Brainstorming | Familiarity with the benefits of the proposed methods to attenuate risk or the severity of cervical cancer | Benefits of doing Pap smear test and its effects on physical and psychological health, Benefits of early detection through screening, Risk attenuation methods, Stress attenuation methods, Strategies, Alternative behaviors to promote Pap test | Pamphlet, Poster, Memory cards, Scheduling cards |
| Perceived benefits | Lecture, Group discussion, Brainstorming, Using motivations | ||||
| Perceived self-efficacy | Motivating, Boosting, Reducing stress |
Comparison of qualitative variables in two groups of Intervention and Control women
| Variables | Intervention | Control | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percentage | Number | Percentage | ||
| ≤ 30 | 10 | 12.5 | 17 | 21.2 | 0.264 |
| 31–40 | 28 | 35 | 31 | 38.8 | |
| 41–50 | 17 | 21.2 | 16 | 20 | |
| > 50 | 25 | 31.2 | 16 | 20 | |
| Married | 75 | 96.2 | 73 | 93 | 0.468 |
| single | 5 | 3.8 | 7 | 6.2 | |
| < 17 | 12 | 15 | 9 | 11.2 | 0.428 |
| ≥ 17 | 68 | 85 | 71 | 88.8 | |
| Illiterate | 29 | 36.2 | 21 | 26.2 | 0.455 |
| Elementary | 29 | 36.2 | 29 | 36.2 | |
| Middle school | 12 | 15.1 | 15 | 18.8 | |
| High school and diploma | 10 | 12.5 | 15 | 18.8 | |
| 0–3 | 55 | 68.8 | 63 | 78.8 | 0.151 |
| ≥4 | 25 | 31.2 | 17 | 21.2 | |
*Chi-square
Knowledge frequency distribution of women under study according to each risk factor of cervical cancer
| Risk Factors of Cervical Cancer | Yes | No Idea and No |
|---|---|---|
| Marriage at an early age (under 16) | 101 (63.1) | 59 (36.8) |
| First pregnancy at an early age (under 20) | 104 (65) | 56 (35) |
| High number of deliveries (4 and more) | 109 (68.1) | 51 (31.8) |
| Women whose husbands had a wife with cervical cancer | 107 (66.9) | 53 (33.1) |
| Women whose husbands have multiple spouses | 108 (67.5) | 52 (32.5) |
| Deficiency of Vitamin A, C and Folic Acid | 114 (71.2) | 46 (28.7) |
| Women who have been married more than once | 121 (75.6) | 39 (24.3) |
| Women who smoke | 137 (85.6) | 23 (14.3) |
| Family history of cervical cancer | 126 (78.8) | 34 (21.2) |
| Taking contraceptive pills | 72 (45) | 88 (55) |
| Non-compliance with genital hygiene | 149 (93.1) | 11 (6.8) |
| One of the couples’ history of STDs | 138 (86.2) | 22 (13.7) |
| Low socioeconomic status | 150 (93.8) | 10 (6.2) |
Comparison of HBM constructs in two groups at before and after of intervention
| Variable | Group Time | Intervention group | Control group | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 20.5 ± 2.2 | 20.1 ± 1.8 | 0.580 | |
| 2-months follow-up | 25.2 ± 2.1 | 19.7 ± 1.6 | 0.001 | |
| 0.001 | 0.435 | – | ||
| Baseline | 22.5 ± 2.7 | 22.6 ± 2.1 | 0.101 | |
| 2-months follow-up | 29.0 ± 2.20 | 22.7 ± 2.9 | 0.001 | |
| 0.001 | 0.490 | – | ||
| Baseline | 19.6 ± 1.7 | 19.8 ± 1.0 | 0.802 | |
| 2-months follow-up | 24.5 ± 1.1 | 19.6 ± 1.7 | 0.001 | |
| 0.001 | 0.329 | – | ||
| Baseline | 20.1 ± 1.9 | 19.3 ± 1.3 | 0.181 | |
| 2-months follow-up | 24.2 ± 1.6 | 19.2 ± 1.4 | 0.001 | |
| 0.001 | 0.469 | – | ||
| Baseline | 30.9 ± 5.6 | 29.8 ± 3.5 | 0.359 | |
| 2-months follow-up | 18.0 ± 6.5 | 30.1 ± 3.7 | 0.001 | |
| 0.001 | 0.07 | – | ||
| Baseline | 20.1 ± 3.3 | 19.8 ± 1.1 | 0.06 | |
| 2-months follow-up | 24.7 ± 1.0 | 19.1 ± 3.0 | 0.001 | |
| 0.001 | 0.06 | – |
* Independent T-test; ** Paired T-test
Frequency distribution of Pap smear test before the educational intervention
| Variables | Intervention | Control | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percentage | Number | Percentage | ||
| Pap smear test | |||||
| Yes | 15 | 18.75 | 13 | 16.25 | 0.836 |
| No | 65 | 81.25 | 67 | 83.75 | |
*.Fisher’s Exact Test
Frequency distribution of Pap smear test after the educational intervention
| Variables | Intervention | Control | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percentage | Number | Percentage | ||
| Pap smear test | |||||
| Yes | 63 | 78.75 | 18 | 22.5 | 0.001 |
| No | 17 | 21.25 | 62 | 77.5 | |
*. Fisher’s Exact Test