Literature DB >> 33316278

Cervical cancer risk and screening among women seeking assistance with basic needs.

Lindsay M Kuroki1, L Stewart Massad2, Candice Woolfolk3, Tess Thompson4, Amy McQueen4, Matthew W Kreuter4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the United States, more than half of cervical cancers occur in women who are inadequately screened. Interventions to improve access to cervical cancer preventive care is critical to reduce health inequities.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the need for cervical cancer screening among women seeking assistance with basic needs and to assess best approaches to facilitate Papanicolaou test referral. STUDY
DESIGN: This study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of low-income female callers to 2-1-1 Missouri, a helpline for local health and social services. The need for cervical cancer screening was assessed. Callers were randomized to 1 of 3 arms, each providing a Papanicolaou test referral: verbal referral only, verbal referral and tailored print reminder, or verbal referral and navigator. The primary outcome was contacting a Papanicolaou test referral 1 month following intervention. Student t tests or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyze significant differences in continuous variables, whereas Fisher exact or χ2 tests were used for categorical variables. We stratified by number of unmet basic needs (0-1 vs ≥2) and compared success of contacting a Papanicolaou test referral among study groups (verbal referral vs tailored reminder vs navigator) using the Fisher exact test and χ2 test, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess risk factors for nonadherence for Papanicolaou test at baseline and at 1 month follow-up, adjusting for race and ethnicity, age, insurance status, self-rated health, smoking, and study group.
RESULTS: Among 932 female callers, 250 (26.8%) needed cervical cancer screening. The frequency of unmet basic needs was high, the most common being lack of money for unexpected expenses (91.2%) and necessities, such as food, shelter, and clothing (73.2%). Among those needing a Papanicolaou test, 211 women received screening referrals. Women in the navigator group (21 of 71, 29.6%) reported higher rates of contacting a Papanicolaou test referral than those exposed to verbal referral only (11/73, 15.1%) or verbal referral and tailored print reminder (9/67, 13.4%) (P=.03). Among 176 women with ≥2 unmet needs who received a Papanicolaou test referral, the provision of a navigator remained associated with contacting the referral (navigator [33.9%] vs verbal referral [17.2%] vs tailored reminder [10.2%]; P=.005). Assignment to the navigator group (adjusted odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-8.5) and nonwhite race (adjusted odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.8) were independent predictors of contacting a Papanicolaou test referral.
CONCLUSION: Low-income women seeking assistance with basic needs often lack cervical cancer screening. Health navigators triple the likelihood that women will make contact with Papanicolaou test services, but most 2-1-1 callers still fail to schedule Papanicolaou testing despite assistance from navigators. Interventions beyond health navigators are needed to reduce cervical cancer disparities.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  2-1-1 callers; Papanicolaou test; adherence to cervical cancer screening; cervical cancer prevention; navigator assistance with unmet basic needs; unmet basic needs

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33316278      PMCID: PMC8140608          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.12.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  35 in total

1.  Receipt of cancer screening services: surprising results for some rural minorities.

Authors:  Kevin J Bennett; Janice C Probst; Jessica D Bellinger
Journal:  J Rural Health       Date:  2011-03-11       Impact factor: 4.333

2.  Looking Beyond Income and Education: Socioeconomic Status Gradients Among Future High-Cost Users of Health Care.

Authors:  Tiffany Fitzpatrick; Laura C Rosella; Andrew Calzavara; Jeremy Petch; Andrew D Pinto; Heather Manson; Vivek Goel; Walter P Wodchis
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 3.  Adherence to care plan in women with abnormal Papanicolaou smears: a review of barriers and interventions.

Authors:  N Khanna; M D Phillips
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Pract       Date:  2001 Mar-Apr

4.  Cervical cancer screening in the United States, 1993-2010: characteristics of women who are never screened.

Authors:  Han-Yang Chen; Courtenay L Kessler; Naoyo Mori; Suneet P Chauhan
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 2.681

5.  Proactive screening for health needs in United Way's 2-1-1 information and referral service.

Authors:  Katherine S Eddens; Matthew W Kreuter
Journal:  J Soc Serv Res       Date:  2011

6.  Association of knowledge, anxiety, and fear with adherence to follow up for colposcopy.

Authors:  Sandra E Brooks; Nancy J Gordon; Sarah J Keller; Simu K Thomas; T Timothy Chen; Gloria Moses
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 1.925

Review 7.  Health disparities based on socioeconomic inequities: implications for urban health care.

Authors:  Kevin Fiscella; David R Williams
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 6.893

8.  Perception of unmet basic needs as a predictor of depressive symptoms among community-dwelling older adults.

Authors:  Dan G Blazer; Natalie Sachs-Ericsson; Celia F Hybels
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 6.053

9.  Meta-analysis of social inequality and the risk of cervical cancer.

Authors:  Seema Parikh; Paul Brennan; Paolo Boffetta
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2003-07-10       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  Vital signs: cervical cancer incidence, mortality, and screening - United States, 2007-2012.

Authors:  Vicki B Benard; Cheryll C Thomas; Jessica King; Greta M Massetti; V Paul Doria-Rose; Mona Saraiya
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2014-11-07       Impact factor: 17.586

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.