Premium
A single‐visit cervical carcinoma prevention program offered at an inner city church
Author(s) -
Holschneider Christine H.,
Felix Juan C.,
Satmary Wendy,
Johnson Michael T.,
Sandweiss Lynn M.,
Montz F. J.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.052
H-Index - 304
eISSN - 1097-0142
pISSN - 0008-543X
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19991215)86:12<2659::aid-cncr10>3.0.co;2-s
Subject(s) - medicine , colposcopy , cervical cancer , cervical carcinoma , carcinoma , cytology , demographics , health education , family medicine , obstetrics , gynecology , cancer , nursing , public health , demography , pathology , sociology
BACKGROUND A single‐visit cervical carcinoma prevention program was implemented, integrating screening, diagnosis, treatment, and health education in the familiar environment of the community church. METHODS Nonpregnant women age 18 years or older, who had not received cervical carcinoma screening in the preceding year were eligible. Subjects provided information on personal demographics, health, and knowledge regarding cervical carcinoma prevention. Thereafter, cervical cytology was collected, processed, and interpreted on site. Participants attended small‐group instruction on cervical carcinoma prevention. Screening results were given to each subject individually. Patients with abnormal cytology underwent immediate colposcopy with biopsies or loop electrosurgical excision procedure as indicated. Participant satisfaction and educational impact were evaluated. RESULTS Ninety of the 98 participants reported that Spanish was their native language; 59 did not speak English. Fifty‐four had had fewer than 6 years of education and 55 were unemployed. Seventy‐eight did not have a regular physician or health insurance. Twenty‐four either had never undergone cervical carcinoma screening or had let more than 5 years elapse since their previous examination. None of nine potential barriers assessed correlated with past compliance with cervical carcinoma screening. The mean time for processing and on‐site interpretation of cervical cytology smears was 22.6 ± 5.3 minutes. The median time patients spent in the program was 75 minutes. There was a significant improvement in the subjects' knowledge regarding cervical carcinoma prevention. All participants were highly satisfied. CONCLUSIONS This parish‐based, integrated, single‐visit program for the prevention of cervical carcinoma was easily implemented and provided care to a substantial proportion of underserved patients. Cancer 1999;86:2659–67. © 1999 American Cancer Society.