Article

"Health is strength": a community health education program to improve breast and cervical cancer screening among Korean American Women in Alameda County, California.

140 Warren Hall, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-7360, USA.
Cancer Detection and Prevention (Impact Factor: 2.52). 01/2007; 31(2):173-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.cdp.2007.02.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A 48-month community intervention was conducted to improve breast and cervical cancer (BCC) screening among Korean American (KA) women in Alameda County (AL), California. KA women in Santa Clara (SC) County, California served as a comparison group.
Random samples of KA women from each county were surveyed by telephone in 1994 (n=818) and 2002 (n=1084). Propensity score analyses were used to estimate the difference between counties in changes over time in screening (Pap tests, breast self-examinations, clinical breast examinations, and mammography), and to estimate differences in screening between participants and non-participants in an educational workshop among women in AL in 2002.
Mammography screening and clinical breast examinations increased over time in both counties. Pap tests increased in AL but not SC, and breast self-examinations did not change significantly in either county. None of the intervention-comparison group differences over time were significant. In 2002, compared to non-participants, women who attended a workshop were more likely to report a recent Pap test (P<.08).
Although our overall intervention did not appear to enhance screening practices at the community-level, attendance at a women's health workshop appears to have increased cervical cancer screening.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
58 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cervical cancer poses a significant threat to Korean American women, who are reported to have one of the highest cervical cancer mortality rates in the United States. Studies consistently report that Korean American women have the lowest Pap test screening rates across US ethnic groups.
    Journal of Medical Internet Research 01/2014; 16(8):e196. · 4.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The aim of the study was to determine breast cancer risk and early diagnosis applications in women aged ≥50. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional, descriptive field study focused on a population of 4,815 in Mansurog?lu with a 55.1% participation rate in screening. In the study, body mass index (BMI) was also evaluated in the calculation of breast cancer risk by the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRA) (also called the "Gail Risk Assessment Tool") . The interviewers had a three-hour training provided by the researchers, during which interactive training methods were used and applications were supported with role-plays. Results: The mean age of the women participating in the study was 60.1±8.80. Of these women, 57.3% were in the 50-59 age group, 71.7% were married, 57.3% were primary school graduates and 61.7% were housewives. Breast-cancer development rate was 7.4% in the women participating in the study. When they were evaluated according to their relationship with those with breast cancer, it was determined that 73.0% of them had first- degree relatives with breast cancer. According to the assessment based on the Gail method, the women's breast cancer development risk within the next 5 years was 17.6%, whereas their calculated lifetime risk was found to be as low as 0.2%. Statistically significant differences (P=0.000) were determined between performing BSE - CBE and socio-demographic factors. Conclusions: It was determined that 17.6% of the participants had breast cancer risk. There was no statistically significant difference between the women with and without breast cancer risk in terms of early diagnosis practices, which can be regarded as a remarkable finding. It was planned to provide training about the early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer for people with high-risk scores, and to conduct population-based breast cancer screening programs.
    Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 10/2013; 14(10):5877-82. · 1.50 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose/Objectives: To assess the efficacy of Korean Immigrants and Mammography-Culture-Specific Health Intervention (KIM-CHI), an educational program for Korean American (KA) couples designed to improve mammography uptake among KA women.Design: A two-group cluster randomized, longitudinal, controlled design.Setting: 50 KA religious organizations in the Chicago area.Sample: 428 married KA women 40 years of age or older who had not had a mammogram in the past year. The women and their husbands were recruited from 50 KA religious organizations.Methods: Couples were randomly assigned to intervention or attention control groups. Those in the KIM-CHI program (n = 211 couples) were compared to an attention control group (n = 217 couples) at baseline, as well as at 6 and 15 months postintervention on mammogram uptake.Main Research Variables: Sociodemographic variables and mammography uptake were measured. Level of acculturation was measured using the Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale. Researchers asked questions about healthcare resources and use, health insurance status, usual source of care, physical examinations in the past two years, family history of breast cancer, and history of mammography.Findings: The KIM-CHI group showed statistically significant increases in mammography uptake compared to the attention control group at 6 months and 15 months postintervention.Conclusions: The culturally targeted KIM-CHI program was effective in increasing mammogram uptake among nonadherent KA women.Implications for Nursing: Nurses and healthcare providers should consider specific health beliefs as well as inclusion of husbands or significant others. They also should target education to be culturally relevant for KA women to effectively improve frequency of breast cancer screening.
    Oncology Nursing Forum 05/2014; 41(3):E185-93. · 1.91 Impact Factor