Training Community Health Workers: Factors that Influence Mammography Use
- 269 Downloads
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.
KeywordsCommunity health workers Cancer Breast cancer Mammography
- 1.American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures (2009). Available at: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/500809web.pdf.
- 2.American Cancer Society. Leading Sites of New Cancer Cases (2009). Estimates. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/stt/CFF2009_LeadingSites_Est_6.pdf.
- 3.Healthy People (2010). Goals. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/data/midcourse/html/execsummary/Goal2.htm.
- 4.American Cancer Society (2009). Report. Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates by Site, Race, and Ethnicity, US, 2001–2005. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/stt/CFF2009_Inc&MortRaceEth_8.pdf.
- 7.Annie, E. (1998). Casey Foundation. The final report: The national community health advisor study. Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
- 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.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.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
- 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
- 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
- 19.Green, L. W., & Kreuter, M. W. (1991). Health promotion planning: A diagnostic approach (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
- 23.Census (2000). Social Science Data Analysis Network. Available at: http://www.censusscope.org.
- 25.SPSS Base 11.0 (2001). Chicago, IL.Google Scholar