Salud es Vida: a Cervical Cancer Screening Intervention for Rural Latina Immigrant Women.
Salud es Vida: a Cervical Cancer Screening Intervention for Rural Latina Immigrant Women.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s13187-015-0978-x
复制
发表时间：
2017-12
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ferris DG
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Luque JS;Tarasenko YN;Reyes-Garcia C;Alfonso ML;Suazo N;Rebing L;Ferris DG
这项研究考察了Salud Es Vida的可行性和有效性，Salud Es Vida是一个由推广人员领导的西班牙语教育小组会议，内容涉及宫颈癌筛查（巴氏试验）、自我效能（对安排和完成巴氏试验的能力的信念）以及来自农场工人背景的西班牙裔/拉丁裔移民妇女的知识。这些妇女患宫颈癌的比例过高，死亡率大大高于非西班牙裔白人。这项双臂、准实验研究于2014 - 2015年在乔治亚州东南部的四个农村县进行。年龄21-65岁、逾期未做巴氏试验的西班牙裔/拉丁裔移民妇女被纳入干预组（N= 38）和对照组（N=52）。干预是与一组推广人员合作开发的，他们创建了包括课程指南、小册子、挂图、动画短片和课堂活动在内的材料工具包。干预组12人（32%）接受了巴氏试验，对照组10人（19%）接受了巴氏试验（p = 0.178）。干预组在宫颈癌知识回忆和记忆方面均显著高于对照组（p < 0.001）。虽然两组参与者在宫颈癌筛查自我效能评分上没有统计学上的显著差异，但根据基线评分进行调整后，两组的随访得分都更高。小组干预方法与宫颈癌知识的增加有关，但与巴氏试验的吸收无关。可能需要使用患者导航方法或积极跟踪参与者的促销员或进行一对一而不是小组会议的更强化的干预措施来改善这一人群的筛查结果。
This study examined the feasibility and efficacy of Salud Es Vida – a promotora-led, Spanish-language educational group session on cervical cancer screening (Pap tests), self-efficacy (belief in ability to schedule and complete a Pap test), and knowledge among immigrant Hispanic/Latina women from farmworker backgrounds. These women are disproportionately burdened with cervical cancer, with mortality rates significantly higher than non-Hispanic whites. The two-arm, quasi-experimental study was conducted in four rural counties of Southeast Georgia in 2014–15. Hispanic/Latina immigrant women aged 21–65 years and overdue for a Pap test were included as intervention (N = 38) and control (N=52) group participants. The intervention was developed in partnership with a group of promotoras to create the toolkit of materials which includes a curriculum guide, a brochure, a flipchart, a short animated video, and in-class activities. Twelve (32%) intervention group participants received the Pap test compared to 10 (19%) control group participants (p = .178). The intervention group scored significantly higher on both cervical cancer knowledge recall and retention than the control group (p < .001). While there was no statistically significant difference in cervical cancer screening self-efficacy scores between the group participants, both groups scored higher at follow-up, adjusting for the baseline scores. The group intervention approach was associated with increased cervical cancer knowledge, but not uptake of Pap test. More intensive interventions using patient navigation approaches or promotoras who actively follow participants or conducting one-on-one rather than group sessions may be needed to achieve improved screening outcomes with this population.