Cancer Screening for Underserved Women: The Breast and Cervical Cancer Intervention Study

Northern California Cancer Center, Fremont, California, USA.
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention (Impact Factor: 4.13). 09/2008; 17(8):1945-9. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0172
Source: PubMed


To report on the effect of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Intervention Study (BACCIS), a multicomponent intervention conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area between 1992 and 1997.
BACCIS targeted approximately 25,000 multiethnic, underserved women in eight neighborhoods and the public health clinics that served them. An outreach intervention using lay health worker peers and clinic provider inreach intervention to improve breast and cervical cancer screening were evaluated in a quasi-experimental, controlled trial with pretest and posttest household surveys of 1,599 and 1,616 women, respectively. Surveys were conducted in English, Spanish, Mandarin, and Cantonese.
Analyses of community survey results showed no significant improvement in reported screening behaviors. Reports of mammography in the intervention areas in the previous 2 years, or for Pap smear in the previous 3 years, did not differ significantly (73-71% and 84-87%, respectively, for pretest and posttest surveys).
High baseline screening rates, lack of sensitive measures of change at the population level, contamination of the control group, and an imbalance of predictive factors at baseline contributed to the difficulty of assessing the value of the intervention. Lessons learned from this inconclusive study may be of value to future community intervention studies of cancer screening and other health behaviors in multiethnic underserved urban populations.

Download full-text


Available from: Susan L Stewart, Apr 04, 2014
  • Source
    • "However, there was no significant increase in the percentage of early-stage diagnoses and no reduction in the percentage of advanced-stage diagnoses for Hispanic women in California during this time period. Several reasons might help to explain why Hispanic women showed the least improvement in breast cancer stage at diagnosis during this time, including barriers to screening access such as English-speaking ability [35], birthplace and low acculturation [36-38], as well as reduced health care and informational access [39,40]. A study by Crawley et al., found that perceived medical discrimination is also associated with lower breast cancer screening rates among racial and ethnic minorities in California [41]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study investigated the role of key individual- and community-level determinants to explore persisting racial/ethnic disparities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis in California during 1990 and 2000. We examined socio-demographic determinants and changes in breast cancer stage at diagnosis in California during 1990 and 2000. In situ, local, regional, and distant diagnoses were examined by individual (age, race/ethnicity, and marital status) and community (income and education by zip code) characteristics. Community variables were constructed using the California Cancer Registry 1990-2000 and the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census. From 1990 to 2000, there was an overall increase in the percent of in situ diagnoses and a significant decrease in regional and distant diagnoses. Among white and Asian/Pacific Islander women, a significant percent increase was observed for in situ diagnoses, and significant decreases in regional and distant diagnoses. Black women had a significant decrease in distant -stage diagnoses, and Hispanic women showed no significant changes in any diagnosis during this time period. The percent increase of in situ cases diagnosed between 1990 and 2000 was observed even among zip codes with low income and education levels. We also found a significant percent decrease in distant cases for the quartiles with the most poverty and least education. Hispanic women showed the least improvement in breast cancer stage at diagnosis from 1990 to 2000. Breast cancer screening and education programs that target under-served communities, such as the rapidly growing Hispanic population, are needed in California.
    BMC Public Health 11/2013; 13(1):1061. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-13-1061 · 2.26 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We consider a method for signal detection given a small number of data samples, such as in the case of tracking moving sources. By employing a linear transformation, we map the full dimension sensor space data onto a lower dimension space (beamspace) to lower the computation complexity and enhance the signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR). The SINR of the beamspace MVDR beamformer is compared with that of diagonally loaded MVDR. Analysis and simulation show that the beamspace MVDR has better performance when the number of data samples is small.
    Signals, Systems and Computers, 2002. Conference Record of the Thirty-Sixth Asilomar Conference on; 12/2002
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A randomized controlled intervention tested the effectiveness of a community health worker (CHW) program in increasing compliance with annual preventive exams among uninsured Hispanic women living in a rural U.S.-Mexico border area. During 1999-2000, household surveys were administered to women aged 40 and older. Uninsured women not receiving routine comprehensive preventive care were invited to participate in a free comprehensive clinical exam. Participants in the initial exam were eligible to participate in the CHW (promotora) intervention. Women were randomized to one of two intervention arms. One arm received a post-card reminder for an annual preventive exam, the other a postcard reminder and follow-up visit by a promotora. Receiving the promotora intervention was associated with a 35% increase in rescreening over the postcard-only reminder (risk ratio [RR] = 1.35, 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.92). Using promotoras to increase compliance with routine screening exams is an effective strategy for reaching this female population.
    Health Education & Behavior 09/2004; 31(4 Suppl):18S-28S. DOI:10.1177/1090198104266004 · 2.23 Impact Factor
Show more