Rosser Joelle I, Njoroge Betty, Huchko Megan J
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Centre for Microbiology Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Nairobi, Kenya.
Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Jul;98(7):884-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.03.017. Epub 2015 Mar 30.
Cervical cancer screening uptake may be influenced by inadequate knowledge in resource-limited settings. This randomized trial evaluated a health talk's impact on cervical cancer knowledge, attitudes, and screening rates in rural Kenya.
419 women attending government clinics were randomized to an intervention (N=207) or control (N=212) group. The intervention was a brief health talk on cervical cancer. Participants completed surveys at enrollment (all), immediately after the talk (intervention arm), and at three-months follow-up (all). The primary outcomes were the change in knowledge scores and the final screening rates at three-months follow-up. Secondary outcomes were changes in awareness about cervical cancer screening, perception of personal cervical cancer risk, cervical cancer and HIV stigma, and screening acceptability.
Mean Knowledge Scores increased by 26.4% (8.7 points increased to 11.0 points) in the intervention arm compared to only 17.6% (8.5 points increased to 10.0 points) in the control arm (p<0.01). Screening uptake was moderate in both the intervention (58.9%; N=122) and control (60.9%; N=129) arms, with no difference between the groups (p=0.60).
A brief health talk increased cervical cancer knowledge, although it did not increase screening over simply informing women about free screening.
Screening programs can increase patient understanding with just a brief educational intervention.
在资源有限的环境中,宫颈癌筛查的参与率可能会受到知识不足的影响。这项随机试验评估了一场健康讲座对肯尼亚农村地区宫颈癌知识、态度和筛查率的影响。
419名到政府诊所就诊的女性被随机分为干预组(N = 207)或对照组(N = 212)。干预措施是一场关于宫颈癌的简短健康讲座。参与者在入组时(所有人)、讲座结束后立即(干预组)以及三个月随访时(所有人)完成调查。主要结局是知识得分的变化以及三个月随访时的最终筛查率。次要结局包括对宫颈癌筛查的知晓度变化、对个人患宫颈癌风险的认知、宫颈癌和艾滋病毒的污名化以及筛查可接受性。
干预组的平均知识得分提高了26.4%(从8.7分提高到11.0分),而对照组仅提高了17.6%(从8.5分提高到10.0分)(p<0.01)。干预组(58.9%;N = 122)和对照组(60.9%;N = 129)的筛查参与率都处于中等水平,两组之间没有差异(p = 0.60)。
一场简短的健康讲座增加了宫颈癌知识,尽管与仅仅告知女性免费筛查相比,它并没有提高筛查率。
筛查项目只需进行简短的教育干预就能提高患者的理解。