4.7 Article

Feasibility and efficacy of pairing fecal immunochemical testing with mammography for increasing colorectal cancer screening among uninsured Latinas in northern Manhattan

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 194-198

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.06.011

关键词

Colorectal cancer screening; Cancer screening; Fecal immunochemical test; Colorectal cancer prevention; Hispanic/Latina; Acculturation; Uninsured; Community-based cancer screening

资金

  1. Columbia University in New York City
  2. American Cancer Society [RSGT-09-012-01-CPPB]
  3. Department of Defense Breast Cancer Center of Excellence [BC 043120]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. We evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of a program to promote colorectal cancer screening (CRC) among uninsured Latinas receiving mammography through a cancer screening clinic in northern Manhattan. Methods. Between August 2009 and March 2010, unscreened, average CRC risk, uninsured Latinas, aged 50-64 years, undergoing mammography received a screening recommendation, education, and fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Socio-demographic information and level of acculturation was collected. Screening compliance was assessed. Results. Of 651 Latinas evaluated, 210 were eligible and, of these, 94% (n = 197) consented to participate; 441 were excluded because they were up-to-date with CRC screening (n = 130), < 50 (n = 285) or >64 (n = 26) years of age. After intervention, 177 (90%) completed FIT. Within 2 weeks, 87% completed the FIT, and 69% did so with no reminder calls. Acculturation was significantly lower among screeners (p = 0.014). Compared with non-screeners, screeners were more likely to be foreign-born (p = 0.009), to speak only Spanish (p = 0.043), and to prefer to read (p = 0.037), and think (p = 0.015) in Spanish. Conclusion. This study suggests that pairing CRC education and screening with mammography is both feasible and efficacious. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据