Skip Navigation

Strengthening the evidence for maternal and child health programs

Find Established Evidence


Displaying records 1 through 8 (8 total).

Alfonzo E, Andersson Ellstrom A, Nemes S, Strander B. Effect of fee on cervical cancer screening – ScreenFee, a Swedish population-based randomized trial. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0150888

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26986848

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, Enabling Services

Intervention Results:

No significant differences in Pap smear rates between women offered the free screening and those who had to pay

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)

Vogt TM, Glass A, Glasgow RE, La Chance PA, Lichtenstein E. The safety net: a cost-effective approach to improving breast and cervical cancer screening. J Womens Health. 2003;12(8):789-98.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14588129

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, Enabling Services, Designated Clinic/Extended Hours, PROVIDER/PRACTICE

Intervention Results:

Significantly greater odds of Pap smear for women in phone/phone and letter/phone intervention groups than in control group (phone/phone OR=4.77, letter/phone OR=5.57, p<.0001)

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

Thompson B, Coronado G, Chen L, Islas, I. Celebremos la salud! a community randomized trial of cancer prevention. Cancer Causes Control. 2006;17(5):733-46.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16633921

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

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)

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)
   

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.