What is a common component of successful prevention programs for ethnic minorities?

  • Access through your institution

Abstract

Certain minorities in the US are disproportionately burdened with higher cancer incidence and mortality rates. Programs encouraging timely uptake of cancer screening measures serve to reduce cancer health disparities. A systematic literature review was conducted to assess the effectiveness and the qualities of these programs, and to elucidate characteristics of success programs to aid in designing of future ones. We focused on community-based programs rather than clinic-based programs as the former are more likely to reach disadvantaged populations, and on prevention programs for breast, cervical, and/or colon cancers as longstanding screening recommendations for these cancers exist. PubMed, CINAHL and EBSCO databases were searched for articles that utilized community organizations and community health workers. Fourteen programs described in 34 manuscripts were identified. While 10 of 14 programs reported statistically significant increases in cancer prevention knowledge and/or increase in screening rates, only 7 of them enrolled large numbers of participants [defined as ≥1000]. Only 7 programs had control groups, only 4 programs independently verified screening uptake, and 2 programs had long-term follow-up [defined as more than one screening cycle]. Only one program demonstrated elimination of cancer health disparity at a population level. While most community-based cancer prevention programs have demonstrated efficacy in terms of increased knowledge and/or screening uptake, scalability and demonstration in reduction at a population level remain a challenge.

Introduction

The overall incidence and mortality for many cancers are declining. However, cancer disparities in the United States [US] exist for certain ethnic minorities [Zonderman et al., 2014], women [McKinney and Palmer, 2014], sexual minorities [Quinn et al., 2015], and in populations with lower health literacy and socioeconomic status [SES] [Bastani et al., 2015]. Cancer disparities are multifactorial and reflect an interplay between access to healthcare resources, SES, genetic constitution, environmental exposures, cultural background, behaviors associated with high risk of cancers, stress, and most notably, level of utilization of cancer screening measures [National Cancer Institute, n.d.; Siegel et al., 2018]. The community-based participatory research [CBPR] approach has been widely adopted in cancer prevention programs to address lower cancer screening uptake among racial/ethnic minorities. Community health workers [CHWs] were almost always deployed to reach these vulnerable and hard to reach populations. A study of low SES individuals in a Baltimore, MD, US smoking cessation program achieved a 23.7% 12-week quit rate in a community-based program, compared to 9.4% in a clinic-based program [Sheikhattari et al., 2016], supporting the idea that community-based programs may reach target minorities more efficiently than clinic-based programs. However, characteristics of CBPR-based cancer prevention programs that contribute to screening uptake are not well understood.

Therefore, to identify features of successful CBPR-based cancer prevention programs, we conducted a systematic literature review focusing on community-based cancer prevention programs in order to study programs that are more likely to reach disadvantaged populations. We focused on programs promoting prevention of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers, as general population screening guidelines have been available for many years. The programs identified by the systematic literature review were evaluated in terms of significance of the results, sample size, verification of results, length of follow-up, the presence of control groups, and whether population-level reductions in disparity were demonstrated. While most programs demonstrated significant increases in cancer prevention knowledge and/or uptake in screening, scalability and demonstration in reduction of disparity at a population level remain a challenge.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

We selected studies which utilized community organizations and CHWs in order to focus on an underserved population experiencing barriers for cancer screening uptake. A literature search was conducted in 2020 using PubMed [content coverage from 1946 to the current year], CINAHL [content coverage from 1937 to the current year], and other databases covered under EBSCO. The search terms utilized were “Cancer prevention and early detection and community health workers”, “community based

Programs identified in the systematic review

A literature search of PubMed, CINAHL and EBSCO databases, and other sources yielded 655, 75, 79, and 29 articles, respectively, for a total of 838 identified articles. After removing 177 duplicates and excluding 429 articles not targeting a healthy population or targeting cancer types outside the focus of this review, 232 articles were assessed for eligibility. After excluding 198 articles whose cancer prevention programs were not conducted in a community setting [i.e., programs performed in

Conclusions

In conclusion, most of the community-based cancer prevention programs surveyed in this review have demonstrated efficacy, and programs not demonstrating efficacy still provide useful insight as to other facets of CBPR-based programs, such as CHW training and retention. Educational materials alone are difficult to increase screening rates; however, the addition of in-person didactic sessions or navigation services can increase a program's efficacy. We only found a few programs that incorporated

Financial disclosure

No financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper.

Declaration of competing interest

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to disclose. This work was supported in part by the Arkansas Biosciences Institute [the major component of the Tobacco Settlement Proceeds Act of 2000], the Drs. Mae and Anderson Nettleship Endowed Chair of Oncologic Pathology, the UAMS Translational Research Institute [U54 TR001629], and the National Cancer Institute [R01 CA143130]. The supporting funding sources had no involvement in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of

Acknowledgements

The views presented in this study are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent those of the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, nor the Department of Health and Human Services. The funding sources for this study were the Arkansas Biosciences Institute [the major component of the Tobacco Settlement Proceeds Act of 2000, Award Number AWD00053655], the Drs. Mae and Anderson Nettleship Endowed Chair of Oncologic Pathology [Project Number 30014251], the

References [53]

  • et al.

    The influence of health disparities on targeting cancer prevention efforts

    Am. J. Prev. Med.

    [2014]

  • J.M.E. Walsh et al.

    Healthy colon, healthy life: a novel colorectal cancer screening intervention

    Am. J. Prev. Med.

    [2010]

  • T.T. Nguyen et al.

    Colorectal cancer screening and Chinese Americans: efficacy of lay health worker outreach and print materials

    Am. J. Prev. Med.

    [2017]

  • L.K. Larkey et al.

    Latina recruitment for cancer prevention education via community based participatory research strategies

    Contemp Clin Trials

    [2009]

  • M.T. Coleman et al.

    Effective strategies for behavior change

    Prim. Care

    [2012]

  • G.J. Augustus et al.

    Colorectal cancer disparity in African Americans: risk factors and carcinogenic mechanisms

    Am. J. Pathol.

    [2018]

  • F. Ahmad et al.

    Expanding the meaning of ‘being a peer leader’: qualitative findings from a Canadian community-based cervical and breast cancer screening programme

    Heal Soc Care Community

    [2017]

  • E.J. Bailey et al.

    Using cultural beliefs and patterns to improve mammography utilization among African-American women: the Witness Project

    J. Natl. Med. Assoc.

    [2000]

  • R. Bastani et al.

    Randomized trial to increase colorectal cancer screening in an ethnically diverse sample of first-degree relatives

    Cancer.

    [2015]

  • K. Cardarelli et al.

    Community-based participatory approach to reduce breast cancer disparities in south Dallas

    Prog. Community Health Partnersh.

    [2011]

  • S.M. Christy et al.

    A community-based trial of educational interventions with fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screening uptake among blacks in community settings

    Cancer

    [2016]

  • C.R. Clark et al.

    Addressing social determinants of health to improve access to early breast cancer detection: results of the Boston REACH 2010 Breast and Cervical Cancer Coalition Women’s Health Demonstration Project

    J. Women’s Health

    [2009]

  • C.R. Clark et al.

    Case management intervention in cervical cancer prevention: the Boston REACH Coalition Women’s Health Demonstration Project

    Prog Community Heal Partnerships Res Educ Action

    [2011]

  • D.O. Erwin et al.

    Development of an African-American role model intervention to increase breast self-examination and mammography

    J. Cancer Educ.

    [1992]

  • D.O. Erwin et al.

    Increasing mammography and breast self-examination in African American women using the witness project model

    J. Cancer Educ.

    [1996]

  • D.O. Erwin et al.

    Replication and dissemination of a cancer education model for African American women

    Cancer Control

    [2003]

  • C.Y. Fang et al.

    Addressing multilevel barriers to cervical cancer screening in Korean American women: a randomized trial of a community-based intervention

    Cancer.

    [2017]

  • F.J. Feltner et al.

    Effectiveness of community health workers in providing outreach and education for colorectal cancer screening in Appalachian Kentucky

    Soc. Work Health Care

    [2012]

  • E.I.O. Garner

    Cervical cancer: disparities in screening, treatment, and survival

    Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev.

    [2003]

  • S.S. Grubbs et al.

    Eliminating racial disparities in colorectal cancer in the real world: it took a village

    J. Clin. Oncol.

    [2013]

  • J.J. Guidry et al.

    Barriers to breast cancer control for African-American women

    Cancer

    [2003]

  • H.-R. Han et al.

    Breast and cervical cancer screening literacy among Korean American women: a community health worker-led intervention

    Am. J. Public Health

    [2017]

  • B.R. Hunt et al.

    Metrics for the systematic evaluation of community-based outreach

    J. Cancer Educ.

    [2013]

  • B.R. Hunt et al.

    Keys to the successful implementation of community-based outreach and navigation: lessons from a breast health navigation program

    J. Cancer Educ.

    [2017]

  • T.C. Hurd et al.

    An evaluation of the integration of non-traditional learning tools into a community based breast and cervical cancer education program: the witness project of Buffalo

    BMC Cancer

    [2003]

  • L. Jandorf et al.

    Breast and cervical cancer screening among Latinas attending culturally specific educational programs

    Prog Community Heal Partnerships Res Educ Action.

    [2008]

  • Cited by [10]

    Recommended articles [6]

    View full text

    © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

    What is a factor that makes it difficult to implement primary prevention programs quizlet?

    Several factors make it difficult to implement primary prevention programs. 1. People tend to believe that the future will result in good things happening to them, whereas bad things will happen to other people.

    What is the target population for secondary prevention programs?

    Secondary prevention emphasizes early disease detection, and its target is healthy-appearing individuals with subclinical forms of the disease.

    What is the purpose of secondary enhancements?

    Secondary enhancements go even farther, however, to build upon already-optimal functioning and satisfaction to achieve peak experiences. Primary enhancements make things good [create optimal experiences], whereas secondary enhancements make things the very best that they can be [create peak experiences].

    What is the overall goal of Hope Therapy?

    Through focusing on inspiring thought methods, hope therapy helps individuals better use problem-solving skills, and as a result, to use problem-solving skills more than avoidance coping in response to problems and challenges. [29] Hope therapy utilizes positive psychology instead of focusing on weaknesses.

    Chủ Đề