Skip Navigation

Strengthening the evidence for maternal and child health programs

Find Established Evidence


Displaying records 1 through 19 (19 total).

Byrd TL, Wilson KM, Smith JL, et al. AMIGAS: a multicity, multicomponent cervical cancer prevention trial among Mexican American women. Cancer. 2013;119(7):1365-72.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23280399

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, Community-Based Group Education

Intervention Results:

Significant difference between intervention groups and control group (52.3% in full AMIGAS program, 45.5% in flip chart- only, 41.3% in video-only vs 24.8% in control group; p<.0001) in ITT analysis

Nguyen BH, Nguyen K, McPhee SJ, Nguyen AT, Tran DQ, Jenkins CNH. Promoting cancer prevention activities among Vietnamese physicians in California. J Cancer Educ. 2000;15(2):82-5.

Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08858190009528662

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Reminder/Recall Systems, Provider Education

Intervention Results:

At 3-year follow-up, physician performance rates for Pap testing increased significantly (p=.004)

O’Brien MJ, Halbert CH, Bixby R, Pimentel S, Shea JA. Community health worker intervention to decrease cervical cancer disparities in Hispanic women. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(11):1186-92.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20607434

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, Community-Based Group Education

Intervention Results:

Significantly higher screening rates at 6-month follow-up for women in intervention than in control group (65% vs 36%, p=.02)

Taylor VM, Hislop TG, Jackson JC, et al. A randomized controlled trial of interventions to promote cervical cancer screening among Chinese women in North America. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(9):670-7.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11983755

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, Patient Navigation, Enabling Services, Home Visits

Intervention Results:

At 6-month follow-up, women in both intervention groups significantly more likely to have Pap smear than women in control group (39% in outreach worker group vs 15% in control, p<.001; 25% in direct mail group vs 15% in control, p=.03)

Taylor VM, Jackson JC, Yasui Y, et al. Evaluation of a cervical cancer control intervention using lay health workers for V50ietnamese American women. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(10):1924-9.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936992/

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, Home Visits

Intervention Results:

No significant differences in Pap smear rates between intervention and control groups

Decker KM, Turner D, Demers AA, Martens PJ, Lambert P, Chateau D. Evaluating the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening invitation letters. J Womens Health. 2013;22(8):687-93.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915107

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation, Educational Material, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Designated Clinic/Extended Hours

Intervention Results:

After controlling for all variables, intervention group significantly more likely to have Pap smear in the 6 months following the intervention than women in control group (OR= 2.60, 95% CI: 2.09-3.35, p<.001) in intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis

Taylor VM, Jackson JC, Yasui Y, et al. Evaluation of an outreach intervention to promote cervical cancer screening among Cambodian American women. Cancer Detect Prev. 2002;26(4):320-7.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1592335/

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, Patient Navigation, Enabling Services, COMMUNITY, Community Events, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, Home Visits

Intervention Results:

No significant differences in the odds of having a Pap smear between intervention and control groups

Dorrington MS, Herceg A, Douglas K, Tongs J, Bookallil M. Increasing Pap smear rates at an urban Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service through translational research and continuous quality improvement. Aust J Prim Health. 2015;21(4):417-22.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25703868

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation, Educational Material, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Reminder/Recall Systems, Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Designated Clinic/Extended Hours, Female Provider

Intervention Results:

Significant increase in Pap smear rate in study year compared with previous years (t(3)=10.25. p=.002). Increase stayed significantly higher at 10 months follow-up (t(50)= -3.221, p=.002)

Foley O, Birrer N, Rauh-Hain J, Clark R, DiTavi E, Carmen M. Effect of educational intervention on cervical cancer prevention and screening in Hispanic women. J Community Health. 2015;40(6):1178-84.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26026277

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, Community-Based Group Education, Other Media, COMMUNITY, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS

Intervention Results:

No significant difference in Pap smear screening rates between baseline and follow-up

Kaczorowski J, Hearps SJ, Lohfield L, et al. Effect of provider and patient reminders, deployment of nurse practitioners, and financial incentives on cervical and breast cancer screening rates. Can Fam Physician. 2013;59(6):e282-9.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23766067

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation, Educational Material, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Reminder/Recall Systems, Financial Incentives, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner

Intervention Results:

Significant increase in Pap smear rates between baseline and follow-up (6.3%, 95% CI: 5.1%-7.5%).

Bastani R, Berman BA, Belin TR, et al. Increasing cervical cancer screening among underserved women in a large urban county health system: can it be done? What does it take? Med Care. 2002;40(10):891-907.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12395023

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Education, Provider Audit/Practice Audit, Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Designated Clinic/Extended Hours

Intervention Results:

  • At Hospital level, increase (10.6%) from baseline to intervention years in intervention group compared with decline (-0.1%) in control group (p<.05 for difference in change scores).
  • Increase in screening rates at Comprehensive Health Center (CHC) 8.6% compared with 6.6% decline in control group (p<.05 for difference in change scores).
  • No intervention effect at the Public Health Center (PHC) level.
  • After adjusting for case-mix, significant intervention effect at Hospital (OR=3.06; 95% CI: 2.07-4.54) and CHC (OR=2.34, 95% CI: 1.05-5.23) but not at PHC level (OR=1.00. 95% CI: 0.63-1.56)

Gotay CC, Banner RO, Matsunaga DS, et al. Impact of a culturally appropriate intervention on breast and cervical screening among native Hawaiian women. Prev Med. 2000;31(5):529-37.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11071833

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Enabling Services, Educational Material, Community-Based Group Education, Designated Clinic/Extended Hours, PROVIDER/PRACTICE

Intervention Results:

Women in intervention community significantly more likely to be compliant with Pap smear guidelines than women in control community (X2=5.73. p=.02)

Luque JS, Tarasenko YN, Reyes-Garcia C, et al. Salud es Vida: a cervical cancer screening intervention for rural Latina immigrant women. [published online Jan 12, 2016]. J Canc Educ. 10.1007/s13187-015-0978-x

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4940281/

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): Educational Material, Community-Based Group Education, PATIENT/CONSUMER

Intervention Results:

No significant difference in Pap smear rates between intervention and control groups

Moskowitz JM, Kazinets G, Wong JM, Tager IB. "Health is strength": a community health education program to improve breast and cervical cancer screening among Korean American Women in Alameda County, California. Cancer Detect Prev. 2007;31(2):173-83.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17418978

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, Community-Based Group Education, Enabling Services, Other Media, COMMUNITY, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS

Intervention Results:

After adjusting for all covariates, no significant difference in Pap smear rates between intervention and comparison counties

Nguyen TT, McPhee SJ, Gildengorin G, et al. Papanicolaou testing among Vietnamese Americans: results of a multifaceted intervention. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(1):1-9.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16777536

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, Community-Based Group Education, Patient Navigation, Enabling Services, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Reminder/Recall Systems, Provider Education, Designated Clinic/Extended Hours, Female Provider, COMMUNITY, Television Media, Other Media, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS

Intervention Results:

Significantly greater odds of Pap smear for women in intervention county than in control county (OR=2.02, 95% CI: 1.37-2.99)

Wismer BA, Moskowitz JM, Min K, et al. Interim assessment of a community intervention to improve breast and cervical cancer screening among Korean American women. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2001;7(2):61-70.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12174401

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, Community-Based Group Education

Intervention Results:

No significant differences in Pap smear rates between the intervention and comparison counties

Bennett AT, Patel DA, Carlos RC, Zochowski MK, Pennewell SM, Chi AM et al. Human papillomavirus vaccine uptake after a tailored, online educational intervention for female university students: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Women’s Health. 2015;24(11):950-957.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26488269

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material

Intervention Results:

No significant difference between intervention and control groups at 3 months post intervention (χ2=.09; P=.76).

Hopfer S. Effects of a narrative HPV vaccination intervention aimed at reaching college women: A randomized controlled trial. Prev Sci. 2012;13(2):173-182

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21993613

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material

Intervention Results:

  • Significantly higher odds of HPV vaccination in the intervention group 2 months following the intervention when delivered by a combined peerexpert source (OR=2.07; 95% CI=1.05, 4.10; P=.036).
  • No significant differences between intervention and control groups when the intervention was delivered by a peer-only source (OR=1.61; 95% CI=.80, 3.28; P=.185).
  • No significant differences between intervention and control groups when the intervention was delivered by an expert-only source (OR=.48; 95% CI=.13, 1.69; P=.25).

Patel DA, Zochowski M, Peterman S, Dempsey AF, Ernst S, Dalton VK. Human papillomavirus vaccine intent and uptake among female college students. J Am Coll Health. 2012;60(2):151-161.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22316412

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation, Educational Material, Other Person-to-Person Education

Intervention Results:

No significant differences between intervention and control groups in HPV vaccination at 6 months post enrollment (RR=.84; 95% CI=.31, 2.28).
   

This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number U02MC31613, MCH Advanced Education Policy, $3.5 M. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.