López-Torres Hidalgo Jesús, Sánchez Ortiz María P, Rabanales Sotos Joseba, Simarro Herráez María J, López-Torres López Jaime, Campos Rosa Monchi
aAlbacete Zone IV Health Centre, Castile-La Mancha Health Service, Albacete Faculty of Medicine, University of Castile-La Mancha bHellín Health Centre 2 cVillarrobledo Health Centre, Castile-La Mancha Health Service dDepartment of Pharmacy, Albacete University Teaching Hospital Complex, Albacete eCuenca Faculty of Nursing, University of Castile-La Mancha, Cuenca fDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Valencia University Teaching Hospital, La Fe Polytechnic Institute, Valencia, Spain.
Eur J Cancer Prev. 2016 Sep;25(5):423-9. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000201.
In countries where cervical cancer screening programmes are conducted on an opportunistic basis, an active search for women at risk should be made to increase coverage. The objective of our study was to assess the effectiveness of three primary care interventions consisting of providing written, telephone and face-to-face information to increase screening participation among women over the age of 25 years. A randomized experimental study with only one post-test control group was conducted on women aged 25-70 years. A total of 1676 women were randomly distributed into four groups and the following interventions were implemented: written briefing; telephone briefing; an invitation to attend a group meeting and no briefing (control group). The women were evaluated 2 years after the intervention. The outcome variable was participation or nonparticipation in cervical cancer screening. It proved possible to interview a total of 1122 women. Among the groups, homogeneity was tested in terms of sociodemographic characteristics and health-related variables. Women who had undergone cytological testing in the 2 years preceding evaluation had a lower mean age (P<0.001) than women who had not done so (45.5±11.0 vs. 48.8±13.0 years). The proportion of women who had participated in screening was as follows: 35.3% in the written information group [95% confidence interval (CI) 29.8-40.9]; 38.4% in the telephone information group (95% CI 32.5-44.2); 29.3% in the face-to-face information group (95% CI 22.8-35.7) and 26.1% in the control group (95% CI 21.2-30.9), with this difference proving statistically significant (P=0.005). Logistic regression showed that only the interventions based on written or telephone briefing were effective vis-à-vis the control group. In conclusion, both written and telephone information can serve to improve women's participation in opportunistic cervical cancer screening. Current preventive strategies could be optimized by means of simple interventions within the scope of health professionals.
在以机会性方式开展宫颈癌筛查项目的国家,应积极寻找高危女性以提高筛查覆盖率。我们研究的目的是评估三种初级保健干预措施的效果,这三种措施包括提供书面、电话和面对面信息,以提高25岁以上女性的筛查参与率。对25至70岁的女性进行了一项仅设有一个测试后对照组的随机实验研究。共有1676名女性被随机分为四组,并实施了以下干预措施:书面简报;电话简报;邀请参加小组会议以及不进行简报(对照组)。在干预两年后对这些女性进行了评估。结果变量是参与或未参与宫颈癌筛查。结果表明总共能够采访1122名女性。在各小组之间,对社会人口学特征和健康相关变量进行了同质性测试。在评估前两年内接受过细胞学检测的女性的平均年龄(P<0.001)低于未接受过检测的女性(45.5±11.0岁对48.8±13.0岁)。参与筛查的女性比例如下:书面信息组为35.3%[95%置信区间(CI)29.8 - 40.9];电话信息组为38.4%(95%CI 32.5 - 44.2);面对面信息组为29.3%(95%CI 22.8 - 35.7),对照组为26.1%(95%CI 21.2 - 30.9),这一差异具有统计学意义(P = 0.005)。逻辑回归显示,相对于对照组,只有基于书面或电话简报的干预措施是有效的。总之,书面和电话信息都有助于提高女性参与机会性宫颈癌筛查的比例。当前的预防策略可通过卫生专业人员范围内的简单干预措施加以优化。