Journal of Community Health

, Volume 35, Issue 6, pp 683–688 | Cite as

Training Community Health Workers: Factors that Influence Mammography Use

  • Cynthia Kratzke
  • Laurel Garzon
  • John Lombard
  • Karen Karlowicz
Original Paper


The purpose of this study was to assess factors that influence mammography use among volunteer community health workers (CHWs). Data trends indicate lower mammography rates among minority and low-income women. Although CHW interventions have been shown to promote mammography use among this population, training strategies and the use of a comprehensive needs assessment are lacking. Using a cross-sectional study design, data were collected via a mailed survey. The dependent variable was mammography use within the past 2 years. The independent variables were categorized according to the factors in the PRECEDE-PROCEED model. Predisposing factors included susceptibility, barriers, benefits, health motivation, self-efficacy, education, and age. Enabling factors included income, health insurance, and regular source of care. Reinforcing factors included physician recommendation to get a mammogram, social norms, and family history of breast cancer. Self-reported data from a mailed survey were obtained from a convenience sample of urban CHWS (N = 109) ages 40–73 with a mean age of 55 (SD = 9.43). The sample included 90% African American and 8% White women. Logistic regression results showed barriers to be predictive of mammography use among CHWs controlling for age, self-efficacy, health motivation, and social norms. The findings suggest CHW training focus on how to identify and address barriers to increase the likelihood of mammography use among CHWs. Future research is needed to identify cultural differences in barriers for minority CHWs.


Community health workers Cancer Breast cancer Mammography 


  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures (2009). Available at:
  2. 2.
    American Cancer Society. Leading Sites of New Cancer Cases (2009). Estimates. Available at:
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    American Cancer Society (2009). Report. Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates by Site, Race, and Ethnicity, US, 2001–2005. Available at:
  5. 5.
    Tejeda, S., Thompson, B., Coronado, G., Heagerty, P. J., & Martin, D. P. (2009). Celebramos La Salud: A community–based intervention for Hispanic and non-Hispanic White women living in a rural area. Journal of Community Health, 34, 47–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Earp, J. A., Eng, E., O’Malley, M. S., et al. (2002). Increasing use of mammography among older, rural African American women: Results from a community trial. American Journal of Public Health, 92(4), 646–654.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Annie, E. (1998). Casey Foundation. The final report: The national community health advisor study. Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Han, H., Kim, K. B., & Kim, M. T. (2007). Evaluation of the training of Korean community health workers for chronic disease management. Health Education Research, 22(4), 513–521.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krieger, J. W., Takaro, T. K., Song, L., & Weaver, M. (2005). The Seattle-King County healthy homes project: A randomized, controlled trial of a community health worker intervention to decrease exposure to indoor asthma triggers. American Journal of Public Health, 95(4), 652–659.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Teufel-Shone, N. I., Drummond, R., & Rawiel, U. (2005). Developing and adapting a family-based diabetes program at the U.S.-Mexico border. Preventive Chronic Diseases, 2(1):20.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Babamoto, K. S., Sey, K. A., Camilleri, A. J., Karlan, V. J., Catalasa J., & Morisky, D. E. (2009). Improving diabetes care and health measures among hispanics using community health workers: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Health Education & Behavior, 36(1):113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nemcek, M. A., & Sabatier, R. (2003). State of evaluation: Community health workers. Public Health Nursing, 20(4):260–271.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Farquhar, S. A., Michael, Y. L., & Wiggins, N. (2005). Building on leadership and social capital to create change in 2 urban communities. American Journal of Public Health, 95(4):596–601.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hardy, C. M., Wynn, T. A., Huckaby, F., Lisovicz, N., & White-Johnson, F. (2005). African American community health advisors trained as research partners: Recruitment and training. Fam and Community Health, 28(1):28–41.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Darnell, J. S., Chang, C., & Calhoun, E. (2006). Knowledge about breast cancer and participation in a faith-based breast cancer program and other predictors of mammography screening among African American women and Latinos. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 201S–212S.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson, R. E., Green, B. L., Anderson-Lewis, C., & Wynn, T. A. (2005). Community health advisors as research partners: An evaluation of training and activities. Family and Community Health, 28(1), 41–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Green, L. W., Kreuter, M. W., Deeds, S. G., & Partridge, K. B. (1980). Health education planning: A diagnostic approach. San Francisco, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1988). Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Education Quarterly;, 15, 175–183.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Green, L. W., & Kreuter, M. W. (1991). Health promotion planning: A diagnostic approach (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Black, M. E., Stein, K. F., & Loveland-Cherry, C. J. (2001). Older women and mammography screening behavior: Do possible selves contribute? Health Education & Behavior, 28(2), 200–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, E. (2003). Breast self-examination performance among Korean nurses. Journal of Nurses in Staff Development, 19(2), 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Egbert, N., & Parrott, R. (2001). Self-efficacy and rural women’s performance of breast and cervical cancer detection practices. Journal of Health Communication, 6, 219–233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Census (2000). Social Science Data Analysis Network. Available at:
  24. 24.
    Champion, V. (1999). Revised susceptibility, benefits, and barriers scale for mammography screening. Research in Nursing and Health, 22, 341–348.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    SPSS Base 11.0 (2001). Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Otero-Sabogal, R., Stewart, S., Sabogal, F., Brown, B. A., & Perez-Stable, E. J. (2003). Access and attitudinal factors related to breast and cervical cancer rescreening: Why are Latinas still underserved? Health Education & Behavior, 30(3), 337–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cynthia Kratzke
    • 1
  • Laurel Garzon
    • 2
  • John Lombard
    • 3
  • Karen Karlowicz
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Health ScienceNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA
  2. 2.School of NursingOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Urban Studies and Public AdministrationOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations