Educational Parties as a Strategy to Promote Breast Health Awareness and Screening in Underserved Female Populations

Byrne, Sharon K.; Robles-Rodriguez, Evelyn

doi:10.1188/09.onf.145-148

Cited by 9 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our literature review identified five types of special events relevant to cancer screening: 1) health fairs [26-30], 2) parties [31,32], 3) a cultural event [33], 4) a special day [34], and 5) a play [35]. Eight studies had the special event as standalone programs while two had the special event along with other educational activities [30,32].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The primary focus of the events varied. Two focused on breast cancer screening only [31,34], three focused on colorectal cancer screening only [29,30,35], three focused both on breast and cervical cancer screening [26,27,32], one focused on breast and colorectal cancer screening [33], and one focused on all three types of screening [28]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven events collected post-special event data only [26-29,31,34,35], and three collected data pre- and post-special event data [30,32,33]. Seven events collected follow-up data, ranging from 2 days post-event to 12 months post-event [27-34].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven events collected follow-up data, ranging from 2 days post-event to 12 months post-event [27-34]. Screening outcomes were measured through program or medical records [27-29,31,34], telephone interviews [30-33], and a voucher system at a clinic [32]. Two special events measured other outcomes by surveys regarding the importance of screening, knowledge about cancer screening, and intentions to get screened [35], or scheduling of screening appointments [26].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four of the articles detailed barriers encountered in the implementation of the special event, including recruitment or scheduling the events [31], time management of event coordinators [27], expenses [30], and lack of a screening facility [33]. Three articles provided cost information [27,29,34].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of special events to promote breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in the United States

Escoffery¹,

Rodgers²,

Kegler³

et al. 2014

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSpecial events are common community-based strategies for health promotion. This paper presents findings from a systematic literature review on the impact of special events to promote breast, cervical or colorectal cancer education and screening.MethodsArticles in English that focused on special events involving breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer conducted in the U.S. and published between January 1990 and December 2011 were identified from seven databases: Ovid, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstract, Cochrane Libraries, and EconLit. Study inclusion and data extraction were independently validated by two researchers.ResultsOf the 20 articles selected for screening out of 1,409, ten articles on special events reported outcome data. Five types of special events were found: health fairs, parties, cultural events, special days, and plays. Many focused on breast cancer only, or in combination with other cancers. Reach ranged from 50–1732 participants. All special events used at least one evidence-based strategy suggested by the Community Guide to Preventive Services, such as small media, one-on-one education, and reducing structural barriers. For cancer screening as an outcome of the events, mammography screening rates ranged from 4.8% to 88%, Pap testing was 3.9%, and clinical breast exams ranged from 9.1% to 100%. For colorectal screening, FOBT ranged from 29.4% to 76%, and sigmoidoscopy was 100% at one event. Outcome measures included intentions to get screened, scheduled appointments, uptake of clinical exams, and participation in cancer screening.ConclusionsSpecial events found in the review varied and used evidence-based strategies. Screening data suggest that some special events can lead to increases in cancer screening, especially if they provide onsite screening services. However, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that special events are effective in increasing cancer screening. The heterogeneity of populations served, event activities, outcome variables assessed, and the reliance on self-report to measure screening limit conclusions. This study highlights the need for further research to determine the effectiveness of special events to increase cancer screening.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of special events to promote breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in the United States

Escoffery¹,

Rodgers²,

Kegler³

et al. 2014

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Interventions for raising breast cancer awareness in women

O’Mahony

Comber

Fitzgerald

et al. 2014

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interventions for raising breast cancer awareness in women

O’Mahony

Comber

Fitzgerald

et al. 2017

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Breast cancer continues to be the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women globally. Early detection, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer are key to better outcomes. Since many women will discover a breast cancer symptom themselves, it is important that they are breast cancer aware i.e. have the knowledge, skills and confidence to detect breast changes and present promptly to a healthcare professional. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for raising breast cancer awareness in women. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register (searched 25 January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 27 January 2016), MEDLINE OvidSP (2008 to 27 January 2016), Embase (Embase.com, 2008 to 27 January 2016), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 27 Feburary 2016). We also searched the reference lists of identified articles and reviews and the grey literature for conference proceedings and published abstracts. No language restriction was applied. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on interventions for raising women's breast cancer awareness i.e. knowledge of potential breast cancer symptoms/changes and the confidence to look at and feel their breasts, using any means of delivery, i.e. one-to-one/group/mass media campaign(s). Data collection and analysis: Two authors selected studies, independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We reported the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and standard deviation (SD) for continuous outcomes. Since it was not possible to combine data from included studies due to their heterogeneity, we present a narrative synthesis. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE methods. Main results: We included two RCTs involving 997 women: one RCT (867 women) randomised women to receive either a written booklet and usual care (intervention group 1), a written booklet and usual care plus a verbal interaction with a radiographer or research psychologist (intervention group 2) or usual care (control group); and the second RCT (130 women) randomised women to either an educational programme (three sessions of 60 to 90 minutes) or no intervention (control group). Knowledge of breast cancer symptoms In the first study, knowledge of non-lump symptoms increased in intervention group 1 compared to the control group at two years postintervention, but not significantly (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.6; P = 0.66; 449 women; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, at two years postintervention, knowledge of symptoms increased in the intervention group 2 compared to the control group but not significantly (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.9 to 2.1; P = 0.11; 434 women; moderate-quality evidence). In the second study, women's awareness of breast cancer symptoms had increased one month post interven...

show abstract

Educational Parties as a Strategy to Promote Breast Health Awareness and Screening in Underserved Female Populations

Cited by 9 publications

References 7 publications

A systematic review of special events to promote breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in the United States

A systematic review of special events to promote breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in the United States

Interventions for raising breast cancer awareness in women

Interventions for raising breast cancer awareness in women

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About