2007
DOI: 10.1007/bf03174335
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development and implementation of a curriculum on cancer screening for small groups of Latino women

Abstract: The curriculum has been successfully implemented and represents a carefully constructed tool to foster breast and cervical early detection in underserved Latino communities.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, randomizing participants at the individual level represents a methodological improvement over much of the existing CHW literature, where weaker experimental designs are more prevalent 57,58,62,[71][72][73] . Second, the community-based recruitment strategies employed here produced a study cohort that is likely more representative of the overall population than a clinic- * Acculturation was measured using the Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (Marin 1987) † Health status was measured by a 1-question self-report with 5-point Likert scale response options ‡ Cervical cancer knowledge was measured by a six-question instrument developed by the study team and is expressed as the mean score of questions answered correctly § Self-efficacy for Pap smear receipt was measured by the Self-efficacy Scale for Pap Smear Screening Participation (SES-PSSP), with a maximum score of 5 (Hogenmiller 2007) ║Defined as having had a Pap smear during the 12 months prior to enrollment * Cervical cancer knowledge is expressed as a mean score out of a maximum of 6 † Self-efficacy is expressed as a mean score out of a maximum of 5 based cohort.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…First, randomizing participants at the individual level represents a methodological improvement over much of the existing CHW literature, where weaker experimental designs are more prevalent 57,58,62,[71][72][73] . Second, the community-based recruitment strategies employed here produced a study cohort that is likely more representative of the overall population than a clinic- * Acculturation was measured using the Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (Marin 1987) † Health status was measured by a 1-question self-report with 5-point Likert scale response options ‡ Cervical cancer knowledge was measured by a six-question instrument developed by the study team and is expressed as the mean score of questions answered correctly § Self-efficacy for Pap smear receipt was measured by the Self-efficacy Scale for Pap Smear Screening Participation (SES-PSSP), with a maximum score of 5 (Hogenmiller 2007) ║Defined as having had a Pap smear during the 12 months prior to enrollment * Cervical cancer knowledge is expressed as a mean score out of a maximum of 6 † Self-efficacy is expressed as a mean score out of a maximum of 5 based cohort.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These workshops followed a previously-studied curriculum, which was modified by the study team for the purposes of the current study 62 . The curriculum employs an interactive format and includes information about female genital anatomy, risk factors for cervical cancer, common myths about cervical cancer, screening procedures and recommendations, the implications of screening, and the epidemiology of cervical cancer in Hispanic women.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Running effective UCC screening programs also entails removing cultural and other barriers (the lack of information about UCC and Pap smears, negative attitudes to screening tests, etc. ), which may interfere with women's chances of being tested [2][3][4][5].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Study designs included tracking of screenings (n=4) [56, 69, 82, 88], qualitative post-tests (n=1) [68], single group pre- and post-tests (n=5) [55, 59, 62, 64, 65, 87], pre- and post-tests with random samples of participants (n=1) [91, 92], and quasi-experimental (n=6) [11, 5154, 67, 83, 85, 93] and experimental (n=12) [57, 58, 60, 61, 63, 66, 7074, 7781, 84, 86, 89] designs. Follow-up periods ranged from six weeks [62] to three years post-intervention [51–53, 83], with the most common follow-up period being six months (n=6) [11, 54, 62, 6466, 70, 71, 86]. Screening was assessed using self-report [11, 5154, 5767, 70, 71, 73, 74, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 84, 9193] or clinic-based tracking and medical record review [56, 69, 82, 85, 86, 88, 89].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%