Barriers and Facilitators to Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Rural Women in Community Clinics by Heath Literacy.

Journal of women's health, issues & care Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-10-25 DOI:10.4172/2325-9795.1000292
Terry C Davis, James Morris, Alfred Rademaker, Laurie Anne Ferguson, Connie L Arnold
{"title":"Barriers and Facilitators to Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Rural Women in Community Clinics by Heath Literacy.","authors":"Terry C Davis, James Morris, Alfred Rademaker, Laurie Anne Ferguson, Connie L Arnold","doi":"10.4172/2325-9795.1000292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rural women lag rural men and urban women in colon cancer (CRC) screening completion.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify rural female patients' knowledge, beliefs barriers, self-efficacy, prior recommendation and completion of CRC screening using an FOBT and to compare these factors by health literacy (HL) level.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This descriptive study was conducted between 2015 and 2016 in 4 rural community clinics in south Louisiana. Patients overdue for screening were given a structured interview by a research assistant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>339 women were enrolled, mean age 58.5, 32% had limited HL, 66% were African American. Most (91.7%) had heard of CRC, yet only 71% knew of any CRC screening tests. Women with adequate HL had greater knowledge of specific tests than those with limited HL (78.4% vs 56.6%, p<0.001). Only 25.7% had been given information on CRC testing; those with adequate HL were more likely to have received information (30.1% vs 16.8%; p=0.017). Most women (93.2%) indicated they would want to know if they had CRC, while 72.2% reported a provider had recommended CRC screening. Only 24.9% said a healthcare provider had ever given them an FOBT or that they had ever completed an FOBT (22.7%). There were no differences in women's report of recommendation or completion by HL level.Self-efficacy for completing an FOBT was high; over 90% indicated they could get an FOBT, complete it and mail results to the lab. Level of confidence did not vary by literacy. Three of the four barrier items varied by HL with women with low HL being more likely to fear doing an FOBT because they thought FOBT instructions would be confusing (p=0.002), doing the test would be embarrassing (p=0.025) or messy (p=0.057).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Rural women are receptive to CRC screening and view FOBTs as effective. Rural community clinics need to provide low cost FOBTs with literacy, gender and culturally appropriate information.</p>","PeriodicalId":90248,"journal":{"name":"Journal of women's health, issues & care","volume":"6 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5858715/pdf/nihms926423.pdf","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of women's health, issues & care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2325-9795.1000292","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/10/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Background: Rural women lag rural men and urban women in colon cancer (CRC) screening completion.

Objective: To identify rural female patients' knowledge, beliefs barriers, self-efficacy, prior recommendation and completion of CRC screening using an FOBT and to compare these factors by health literacy (HL) level.

Methods: This descriptive study was conducted between 2015 and 2016 in 4 rural community clinics in south Louisiana. Patients overdue for screening were given a structured interview by a research assistant.

Results: 339 women were enrolled, mean age 58.5, 32% had limited HL, 66% were African American. Most (91.7%) had heard of CRC, yet only 71% knew of any CRC screening tests. Women with adequate HL had greater knowledge of specific tests than those with limited HL (78.4% vs 56.6%, p<0.001). Only 25.7% had been given information on CRC testing; those with adequate HL were more likely to have received information (30.1% vs 16.8%; p=0.017). Most women (93.2%) indicated they would want to know if they had CRC, while 72.2% reported a provider had recommended CRC screening. Only 24.9% said a healthcare provider had ever given them an FOBT or that they had ever completed an FOBT (22.7%). There were no differences in women's report of recommendation or completion by HL level.Self-efficacy for completing an FOBT was high; over 90% indicated they could get an FOBT, complete it and mail results to the lab. Level of confidence did not vary by literacy. Three of the four barrier items varied by HL with women with low HL being more likely to fear doing an FOBT because they thought FOBT instructions would be confusing (p=0.002), doing the test would be embarrassing (p=0.025) or messy (p=0.057).

Conclusions: Rural women are receptive to CRC screening and view FOBTs as effective. Rural community clinics need to provide low cost FOBTs with literacy, gender and culturally appropriate information.

健康素养对社区诊所农村妇女结直肠癌筛查的阻碍和促进作用
背景:农村妇女在大肠癌(CRC)筛查完成率上落后于农村男性和城市女性。目的:了解农村女性患者使用FOBT筛查结直肠癌的知识、信念障碍、自我效能、既往推荐和完成情况,并通过健康素养(HL)水平对这些因素进行比较。方法:本描述性研究于2015 - 2016年在路易斯安那州南部4个农村社区诊所进行。研究助理对逾期筛查的患者进行了结构化访谈。结果:339名女性入组,平均年龄58.5岁,32%患有有限HL, 66%为非裔美国人。大多数(91.7%)听说过结直肠癌,但只有71%的人知道任何结直肠癌筛查试验。结论:农村妇女接受结直肠癌筛查,认为FOBTs是有效的。结论:农村妇女接受结直肠癌筛查,FOBTs是有效的。农村社区诊所需要向低成本的FOBTs提供扫盲、性别和文化上适当的信息。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信