Barriers to Cervical Cancer Screening and Satisfaction with Self-Sampling among Black Women in Michigan: a Mixed Methods Study.

Medical research archives Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-26 DOI:10.18103/mra.v12i4.5209
Elizabeth Haro, Emma A Butcher, Martha L Alves, Christelle El Khoury, Alexandra Vinson, Diane M Harper
{"title":"Barriers to Cervical Cancer Screening and Satisfaction with Self-Sampling among Black Women in Michigan: a Mixed Methods Study.","authors":"Elizabeth Haro, Emma A Butcher, Martha L Alves, Christelle El Khoury, Alexandra Vinson, Diane M Harper","doi":"10.18103/mra.v12i4.5209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In recent years, cervical cancer screening among Black women in the United States has declined, followed by increased incidence and mortality. We aim to evaluate the individual, sociocultural, and structural barriers to cervical cancer screening in relationship to the exam technique barriers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants received cervical cancer self-screening kits in the mail. They returned their samples and a quantitative survey developed from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) modules designed to address the known individual, sociocultural, and structural barriers to screening. We established the fourteen attributes of cervical cancer screening techniques from prior work. Participants then shared their experiences in a semi-structured qualitative interview informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore the answers to the survey questions. We coded themes from the interviews. Women were grouped as younger (30-45 years) and older (46-65 years).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 41 women completing the study, 21 were in the younger age group (mean 37.3, SD 4.7), and 20 were in the older age group (56.5 (5.5)). All participants self-identified as African American/Black and were due for cervical cancer screening. Women indicated that individual, sociocultural, and structural barriers influenced their cervical cancer screening, but the most significant barrier was the speculum-based technique itself. Three positive attributes and eight negative attributes significantly differed by screening technique, favoring the self-screening technique.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The self-screening technique for screening for cervical cancer is feasible and acceptable to this group of Black women.</p>","PeriodicalId":94137,"journal":{"name":"Medical research archives","volume":"12 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11138408/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical research archives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v12i4.5209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In recent years, cervical cancer screening among Black women in the United States has declined, followed by increased incidence and mortality. We aim to evaluate the individual, sociocultural, and structural barriers to cervical cancer screening in relationship to the exam technique barriers.

Methods: Participants received cervical cancer self-screening kits in the mail. They returned their samples and a quantitative survey developed from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) modules designed to address the known individual, sociocultural, and structural barriers to screening. We established the fourteen attributes of cervical cancer screening techniques from prior work. Participants then shared their experiences in a semi-structured qualitative interview informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore the answers to the survey questions. We coded themes from the interviews. Women were grouped as younger (30-45 years) and older (46-65 years).

Results: Of the 41 women completing the study, 21 were in the younger age group (mean 37.3, SD 4.7), and 20 were in the older age group (56.5 (5.5)). All participants self-identified as African American/Black and were due for cervical cancer screening. Women indicated that individual, sociocultural, and structural barriers influenced their cervical cancer screening, but the most significant barrier was the speculum-based technique itself. Three positive attributes and eight negative attributes significantly differed by screening technique, favoring the self-screening technique.

Conclusions: The self-screening technique for screening for cervical cancer is feasible and acceptable to this group of Black women.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
密歇根州黑人妇女进行宫颈癌筛查的障碍和对自我采样的满意度:一项混合方法研究。
背景:近年来,美国黑人妇女的宫颈癌筛查率有所下降,发病率和死亡率随之上升。我们旨在评估宫颈癌筛查的个人、社会文化和结构性障碍与检查技术障碍之间的关系:方法:参与者收到邮寄的宫颈癌自我筛查工具包。他们寄回了样本和根据全国健康信息趋势调查 (HINTS) 模块设计的定量调查,该模块旨在解决已知的个人、社会文化和结构性筛查障碍。我们根据先前的研究确定了宫颈癌筛查技术的 14 个属性。然后,参与者在理论领域框架 (TDF) 的指导下进行半结构化定性访谈,分享他们的经验,以探讨调查问题的答案。我们对访谈主题进行了编码。女性被分为年轻组(30-45 岁)和年长组(46-65 岁):在完成研究的 41 位女性中,21 位属于年轻组(平均 37.3 岁,标准差 4.7),20 位属于老年组(56.5 岁(5.5))。所有参与者均自认为是非裔美国人/黑人,并应接受宫颈癌筛查。妇女们表示,个人、社会文化和结构性障碍影响了她们的宫颈癌筛查,但最主要的障碍是窥器技术本身。三种积极属性和八种消极属性在筛查技术上存在显著差异,自我筛查技术更受青睐:结论:宫颈癌筛查的自我筛查技术是可行的,也是这群黑人妇女可以接受的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Achieving Chronic Care Equity by Leveraging the Telehealth Ecosystem (ACCTIVATE): A Multilevel Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol. Cultural Effects on the Performance of Older Haitian Immigrants on Timed Cognitive Tests. Characteristics associated with social anxiety in adults with developmental stuttering: A review. Air Pollution as an Environmental Risk Factor for Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias. Hybrid care model: Combining telemedicine and office visits for diabetes management in older adults with type 1 diabetes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1