American journal of public health · 2001
Promoting breast and cervical cancer screening at the workplace: results from the Woman to Woman Study.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Allen J D, Stoddard A M, Mays J, Sorensen G
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This article reports findings from a peer-delivered intervention designed to increase use of breast and cervical cancer screening.
METHODS: Twenty-six worksites were randomly assigned to the intervention or comparison group. The 16-month intervention consisted of group discussions, outreach, and educational campaigns. Data were collected from a random sample of women employees stratified by age (baseline n = 2943; final n = 2747). Cross-sectional analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of the intervention on screening behaviors.
RESULTS: Relative to comparison worksites, the intervention group experienced greater increases in the percentage of women who reported a recent mammogram (7.2% vs 5.6%), clinical breast examination (5.8% vs 2.1%), and Papanicolaou (Pap) test (4.7% vs 1.9%). After worksite cluster and age strata were controlled for, the observed increase in Pap tests was significantly greater in the intervention group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01, 1.62); however, differences in mammography screening rates (OR = 1.14; 95% CI = 0.90, 1.44) and clinical breast examination (OR = 1.19; 95% CI = 0.96, 1.49) were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Intervention activities produced a modest increase in cervical cancer screening, but they did not accelerate breast cancer screening rates above the observed secular trend.
METHODS: Twenty-six worksites were randomly assigned to the intervention or comparison group. The 16-month intervention consisted of group discussions, outreach, and educational campaigns. Data were collected from a random sample of women employees stratified by age (baseline n = 2943; final n = 2747). Cross-sectional analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of the intervention on screening behaviors.
RESULTS: Relative to comparison worksites, the intervention group experienced greater increases in the percentage of women who reported a recent mammogram (7.2% vs 5.6%), clinical breast examination (5.8% vs 2.1%), and Papanicolaou (Pap) test (4.7% vs 1.9%). After worksite cluster and age strata were controlled for, the observed increase in Pap tests was significantly greater in the intervention group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01, 1.62); however, differences in mammography screening rates (OR = 1.14; 95% CI = 0.90, 1.44) and clinical breast examination (OR = 1.19; 95% CI = 0.96, 1.49) were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Intervention activities produced a modest increase in cervical cancer screening, but they did not accelerate breast cancer screening rates above the observed secular trend.