UICC World Cancer Congress 2006

Methods: An intervention trial was undertaken to test the effectiveness of the program on increasing screening and intermediate impact variables (e.g., knowledge, attitudes) among women in two community-intervention sites (Eagle Pass, TX and Merced, CA) compared to women in two comparison-sites (Anthony, NM and Watsonville, CA). A follow-up study was also conducted to assess the impact of the program on repeat-screening following a booster-intervention using the same program materials.

Results: The program was effective in increasing mammography and Pap test screening among farm-worker women. Among women previously non-adherent to mammography screening guidelines, 40.8% of intervention group participants completed screening, compared to 29.9% in the comparison-group. Among women with no recent history of a Pap test (last 3years) 39.5% of intervention group participants completed screening, compared to 23.6% in the comparison groups. The intervention also effectively increased repeat-screening. Among women who had received an initial mammogram through the program, 55.8%of women in the intervention-communities as compared to only 35.7% of women in the comparison-communities received a repeat-mammogram following the booster-session.

Conclusions: Results provide important information about the effectiveness of a community-based intervention for increasing breast and cervical cancer screening among low-income Latinas, specifically farm-workers, along with evidence of the effectiveness of an intervention based on the promotora model.