Results of a randomized controlled trial to increase cervical cancer screening among rural Latinas

Beti Thompson, Elizabeth A Carosso, Esther Jhingan, Lei Wang, Sarah E Holte, Theresa L Byrd, Maria C Benavides, Cathy Lopez, Javiera Martinez-Gutierrez, Genoveva Ibarra, Virginia J Gonzalez, Nora E Gonzalez, Catherine R Duggan, Beti Thompson, Elizabeth A Carosso, Esther Jhingan, Lei Wang, Sarah E Holte, Theresa L Byrd, Maria C Benavides, Cathy Lopez, Javiera Martinez-Gutierrez, Genoveva Ibarra, Virginia J Gonzalez, Nora E Gonzalez, Catherine R Duggan

Abstract

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. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Keywords: Latinas; cervical cancer; community health workers; education intervention; randomized controlled trial (RCT); screening.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report

© 2016 American Cancer Society.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Consort Diagram of the Study

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC, editor. Cervical Cancer Screening Rates. 2013 Available at: , Table 71.
    1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: clinical summary of US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Washington DC: 2012. Available at .
    1. Surveillance E, and End Results Program. SEER Stat Fact Sheets: Cervix Uteri Cancer. 2009–2013 Available at: . [accessed 3/17/2015, 2015]
    1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cervical Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates by Race and Ethnicity. 2009–2013 Available at: . [accessed 3/17/2015, 2015]
    1. Goel MS, Wee CC, McCarthy EP, Davis RB, Ngo-Metzger Q, Phillips RS. Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer screening: the importance of foreign birth as a barrier to care. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:1028–1035.
    1. Hubbell FA, Chavez LR, Mishra SI, Valdez RB. Beliefs about sexual behavior and other predictors of Papanicolaou smear screening among Latinas and Anglo women. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:2353–2358.
    1. Singh GK, Hiatt RA. Trends and disparities in socioeconomic and behavioural characteristics, life expectancy, and cause-specific mortality of native-born and foreign-born populations in the United States, 1979–2003. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35:903–919.
    1. Montealegre JR, Zhou R, Amirian ES, Follen M, Scheurer ME. Nativity disparities in late-stage diagnosis and cause-specific survival among Hispanic women with invasive cervical cancer: an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. Cancer Causes Control. 2013;24:1985–1994.
    1. Froment MA, Gomez SL, Roux A, DeRouen MC, Kidd EA. Impact of socioeconomic status and ethnic enclave on cervical cancer incidence among Hispanics and Asians in California. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;133:409–415.
    1. Scarinci IC, Garcia FA, Kobetz E, et al. Cervical cancer prevention: new tools and old barriers. Cancer. 2010;116:2531–2542.
    1. Griffith K. One-on-one education and client reminders increase uptake of colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening. Evidence-Based Nursing. 2013;16:61–62.
    1. Jenkins C, McPhee S, B JA, et al. Effect of a media-led education campaignon breast and cervical cancer screening among Vietnamese-American women. Preventive Medicine. 1999;28:395–406.
    1. Baron RC, Rimer BK, Coates RJ, et al. Client-directed interventions to increase community access to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35:S56–S66.
    1. Sabatino SA, Lawrence B, Elder R, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43:97–118.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cancer Prevention and Control: Client-Oriented Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening. Available at: . Available from URL: communityguide@cdc.gov [accessed April 1, 2015, 2015 ]
    1. Rhodes S, Foley K, Zometa C, Bloom F. Lay health advisor interventions among Hispanics/Latinos. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33:418–427.
    1. Fernandez M, Savas L, Lipizzi E, Smith J, Vernon SW. Cervical cancer control for Hispanic women in Texas: effective strategies from research and practice. Gynecological Oncology. 2014;132:S26–S32.
    1. Tejeda S, Darnell J, Cho Y, Stolley M, Markossian T, Calhoun E. Patient barriers to follow-up care for breast and cervical cancer abnormalities. HJournal of Women’s Health. 2013;22:507–517.
    1. Duggan C, Coronado G, Martinez J, et al. Cervical Cancer Screening and Adherence to Follow-up Among Hispanic Women study protocol: A randomized controlled trial to increase the uptake of cervical cancer screening in Hispanic women. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:170.
    1. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287:2114–2119.
    1. U.S. Bureau of the Census. US Census Bureau, Detailed Tables: Yakima County, Washington. Available from URL: [accessed May 3, 2003, 2003]
    1. U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Briefs. Available from URL: [accessed October 10, 2003]
    1. Sheeran P, Orbell S. Using implementation intentions to increase attendance for cervical cancer screening. Health Psychology. 2000;19:283–289.
    1. Coronado GD, Thompson B, McLerran D, Schwartz SM, Koepsell TD. A short acculturation scale for Mexican-American populations. Ethn Dis. 2005;15:53–62.
    1. van den Akker-van Marle M, van Ballegooijen M, van Oortmarssen G, Boer R, Habbema J. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: comparison of screening policies. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2002;94:193–204.
    1. Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:191–215.
    1. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: a Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
    1. Benard VB, Howe W, Royalty J, Helsel W, Kammerer W, Richardson LC. Timeliness of cervical cancer diagnosis and initiation of treatment in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2012;21:776–782.
    1. Thompson B, Coronado G, Neuhouser M, Chen L. Colorectal carcinoma screening among Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites in a rural setting. Cancer. 2005;103:2491–2498.
    1. Hunter JB, de Zapien JG, Papenfuss M, Fernandez ML, Meister J, Giuliano AR. The impact of a promotora on increasing routine chronic disease prevention among women aged 40 and older at the U.S.-Mexico border. Health Education & Behavior. 2004;31:18S–28S.
    1. Kandel W, Cromartie J. New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America. In: Agriculture USDo, editor. Rural Development Research Report: Ecomomic Research Service. 2004.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner