Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2022
Improving cervical cancer screening rates: a scoping review of resources and interventions.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание 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.
Popalis Madyson L, Ramirez Sarah I, Leach Kelsey M, Granzow Marni E, Stoltzfus Kelsey C, Moss Jennifer L
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Cervical cancer mortality can be prevented through early detection with screening methods such as Pap and high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) tests; however, only 81% of women aged 21-65 are up-to-date on screening. Many interventions to increase cervical cancer screening have been implemented, but there is limited understanding about which intervention components are most successful.
METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of existing literature and available resources for cervical cancer screening interventions to identify gaps in the research. We used t tests and correlations to identify associations among intervention components and effect sizes.
RESULTS: Out of nine studies, the mean overall effect size for interventions was 11.3% increase in Pap testing for cervical cancer screening (range = - 4-24%). Interventions that included community health workers or one-on-one interaction had the biggest effect size (p < 0.05). No associations with effect size were noted for literacy level, number of intervention components, or targeting by race/ethnicity.
CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions may include educational sessions with community health workers or one-on-one patient interaction to improve cervical cancer screening. Further research is needed to establish effect sizes for large-scale interventions and hrHPV screening interventions.
METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of existing literature and available resources for cervical cancer screening interventions to identify gaps in the research. We used t tests and correlations to identify associations among intervention components and effect sizes.
RESULTS: Out of nine studies, the mean overall effect size for interventions was 11.3% increase in Pap testing for cervical cancer screening (range = - 4-24%). Interventions that included community health workers or one-on-one interaction had the biggest effect size (p < 0.05). No associations with effect size were noted for literacy level, number of intervention components, or targeting by race/ethnicity.
CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions may include educational sessions with community health workers or one-on-one patient interaction to improve cervical cancer screening. Further research is needed to establish effect sizes for large-scale interventions and hrHPV screening interventions.