![]() Other studies in America and Canada showed that there were an increase in screening rate (from 41.1 to 53.4%) in the intervention group, more than the usual-care arm (increased from 25.2 to 34%), with a difference in differences (DID) of 8.8% and an increase in screening rate (from 65.8 to 81.8%) in the intervention group greater than the control group (increased from 70.1 to 75.5%), with a difference in differences of 10.6% respectively. Ī health education intervention based studies done in Nigeria, Cameroon, and Enugu state showed that there was an increase in proportion of having good perception (from 5.1 to 95.1%), screening practices (from 4.3 to 8.3%), and very good knowledge (from 2 to 70.5%), and intention to screen (from 70.1 to 75.5%). Similarly, a study in southeast Nigeria, 2017, showed an increase in cervical cancer screening practice by 6.8% from pre to post intervention. A study in Barcelona, 2017, showed an increase in demand of cervical cancer screening by 20% in the intervention group, with a difference in differences of 11%. ĭifferent studies used a variety of culturally tailored health promotion interventional modalities to increase cervical cancer screening. Health education interventions promote not only perception of women about cervical cancer but also increases demand for cervical cancer screening. Though cervical cancer is the second most devastating cancer in low- and middle-income countries in the world, it is considered preventable disease. Demand for screening is an expressed or felt needs of women for cervical cancer screening. The registration number is PACTR201808126223676 date registered: 23 April 2018, and the type is “retrospectively registered.”Ĭervical cancer is a malignant reproductive organ tumor, which manifests itself in the transformation zone of the exo-cervical opening. Thus, it would be helpful to consider health education in health planning and service provision. This study revealed that health education intervention could increase in overall demand of women for cervical cancer screening. Finally, the impact of intervention was explained by the difference in differences in the proportion of willingness to screen (36.6%) ( p value < 0.000), having plan to screen (14.6%) ( p value < 0.000), ever screened (16.9%) ( p value < 0.000), and overall demand for cervical cancer screening (36.9%) ( p value < 0.000). After follow-up, a statistically significant difference between control and intervention groups was observed in the proportion of willingness to screen ( p value = 0.000), having plan to screen ( p value = 0.000), ever screened ( p value = 0.000), and the overall demand for cervical cancer screening ( p value = 0.000). At baseline, the differences in proportion of all outcome variables in control and intervention groups were not statistically significant. ResultsĪ total of 674 participants (340 in intervention and 334 in control groups) were able to complete the follow-up, making a response rate of 96.3%. Finally, difference in difference analysis was used to see the true effect of the intervention on outcome variable. Chi-square test was used to assess the difference of variables between control and intervention groups at baseline data. The intent-to-treat and per-protocol analysis were considered to evaluate the inflation of the loss to follow-up on effect size. ![]() The outcome variable was demand of women for cervical cancer screening. The health education was given for three days followed by subsequent consultations for 6 months. After baseline data collection, health education intervention was given to the intervention group by trained health professionals using power point presentation and peer group discussion at the nearest health institution. A total of 700 women aged 20 to 60 years were recruited for both groups using simple random sampling from April to July, 2018. ![]() MethodsĬommunity-based cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in thirty district towns as clusters in Tigray region, Ethiopia. Our study evaluated the impact of health education intervention on women’s demand for cervical cancer screening. ![]() Despite the government’s attempts to broaden screening facilities, the screening service utilization was poor. Cervical cancer is considered preventable disease, though it is the second largest killer of women’s cancer in low and middle-income countries.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |