Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

AMIGAS: A multicity, multicomponent cervical cancer prevention trial among Mexican American women

2012; Wiley; Volume: 119; Issue: 7 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/cncr.27926

1097-0142

Theresa Byrd, Katherine Wilson, Judith Lee Smith, Gloria D. Coronado, Sally W. Vernon, Maria Eugenia Fernandez‐Esquer, Beti Thompson, Melchor Ortiz, David R. Lairson, María E. Fernández,

Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection

Abstract BACKGROUND: Considerable efforts have been undertaken in the United States to reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality by increasing screening; however, disparities in screening rates continue to exist among certain racial and ethnic minority groups. The objective of the current study was to determine the effectiveness of a lay health worker‐delivered intervention—AMIGAS ( Ayudando a las Mujeres con Informacion, Guia, y Amor para su Salud [helping women with information, guidance, and love for their health])—to increase Papanicolaou (Pap) test screening among 3 populations of women of Mexican origin. METHODS: Six hundred thirteen women of Mexican origin in 3 treatment sites were randomized among 4 study arms: the full AMIGAS program with a video and a flip chart (n = 151), the AMIGAS program without the video (n = 154), the AMIGAS program without the flip chart (n = 155), and a usual care control group (n = 153). Six months after enrollment, women were surveyed and reported whether or not they had been screened. RESULTS: Women in any of the intervention arms were statistically significantly more likely to report being screened than those in the usual care group in both an intent‐to‐treat analysis and a per‐protocol analysis. In the intent‐to‐treat analysis, 25% of women in the control group and 52% in the full AMIGAS program group reported having had Pap tests ( P < .001); in the per‐protocol analysis, the percentages were 29% and 62%, respectively ( P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: AMIGAS was effective in increasing Pap test screening among women of Mexican descent when used in a 1‐to‐1 setting. Future research should compare the 1‐on‐1 intervention with the group‐based intervention. Cancer 2013. © 2012 American Cancer Society.