Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An Online Survey and Focus Groups for Promoting Cancer Prevention Measures

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In order to design a cancer prevention promotion program in the region, suggestions were solicited at a medical center. We hypothesized that a majority would be native to state, and would be able to articulate about the barriers that may exist. Through online survey and focus groups, suggestions were sought, and the knowledge and the compliance with cancer prevention recommendations were assessed to determine the participants’ qualifications as potential educators. Sixty-five point two percent of participants (n = 1018) graduated from high school in Arkansas. The most commonly given suggestions were to provide education to increase awareness, to use social media for promotion, to improve access, and to reduce costs. Self-reported adherence rates to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening were 82.6% (n = 954), 75.8% (n = 541), and 76.7% (n = 453), respectively. Having a personal history of cancer significantly increased colorectal cancer screening uptake (p = 0.04), but paradoxically decreased mammography uptake (p = 0.007). Salary of $40,000 and more and having a Bachelor’s degree or higher were associated with higher compliance of Papanicolaou test only (p = 0.007 and p = 0.001, respectively). A majority (67.7%, n = 1056) of respondents expressed willingness to contribute to promoting cancer prevention measures, and 38.3% (n = 559) were willing to participate in focus groups. However, only 6.3% (n = 35) actually participated. The participants’ knowledge and compliance appeared to be sufficient, but their follow through in focus group participation was poor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The focus group transcripts are available upon request to the corresponding author.

References

  1. State Cancer Profiles, Quick profiles: Arkansas, screening and risk factors (2019) https://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/quick-profiles/index.php?statename=arkansas#t=1. Accessed 6 July 2020

  2. Preston MA et al (2018) Colorectal cancer screening in rural and poor-resourced communities. Am J Surg 216(2):245–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.08.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res 15(9):1277–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Deeks A, Lombard C, Michelmore J, Teede H (2009) The effects of gender and age on health related behaviors. BMC Public Health 9:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. F. J. Webb, J. Khubchandani, C. W. Striley, and L. B. Cottler (2018) Correction to: Black–White Differences in willingness to participate and perceptions about health research: results from the population-based HealthStreet Study. J Immigr Minor Health 0(0):1https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-018-0747-0

  6. Shah SK, Nakagawa M, Lieblong BJ (2020) Examining aspects of successful community-based programs promoting cancer screening uptake to reduce cancer health disparity: a systematic review. Prev Med (Baltim) 141:106242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106242 (May 2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Taylor VM et al (2010) Evaluation of a cervical cancer control intervention using lay health workers for Vietnamese American women. Am J Public Health 100(10):1924–1929. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.190348

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. K Cardarelli et al 2011 Community-based participatory approach to reduce breast cancer disparities in South Dallas. Prog Community Heal Partnersh 5(4):375-385. muse.jhu.edu/article/462765

  9. Nguyen TT et al (2017) Colorectal cancer screening and Chinese Americans: efficacy of lay health worker outreach and print materials. Am J Prev Med 2(3):e67–e76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Thompson B et al (2017) Results of a randomized controlled trial to increase cervical cancer screening among rural Latinas. Cancer 123(4):666–674. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Feltner FJ, Ely GE, Whitler ET, Gross D, Dignan M (2012) Effectiveness of community health workers in providing outreach and education for colorectal cancer screening in Appalachian Kentucky. Soc Work Health Care 51(5):430–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2012.657296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Miyagi E et al (2014) Web-based recruiting for a survey on knowledge and awareness of cervical cancer prevention among young women living in Kanagawa prefecture, Japan. Int J Gynecol Cancer 24(7):1347–1355. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000220

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Mohanty S, Leader AE, Gibeau E, Johnson C (2018) Using Facebook to reach adolescents for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Vaccine 36(40):5955–5961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.08.060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Grubbs SS et al (2013) Eliminating racial disparities in colorectal cancer in the real world: it took a village. J Clin Oncol 31(16):1928–1930. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.47.8412

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Snyder CF, Earle CC, Herbert RJ, Neville BA, Blackford AL, Frick KD (2008) Preventive care for colorectal cancer survivors: a 5-year longitudinal study. J Clin Oncol 26(7):1073–1079. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.11.9859

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Snyder CF, Earle CC, Herbert RJ, Neville BA, Blackford AL, Frick KD (2008) Trends in follow-up and preventive care for colorectal cancer survivors. J Gen Intern Med 23(3):254–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0497-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. N. Erbil, Y. Tezcan, E. N. Gür, M. Yildirim, and N. Aliş (2010) Factors affecting cervical screening among Turkish women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 11(6)1641–4 [Online]. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338210.

  18. Bocci G, Troiano G, Messina G, Nante N, Civitelli S (2017) Factors that could influence women’s participation in colorectal cancer screening: an Italian study. Ann Ig 29(2):151–160. https://doi.org/10.7416/ai.2017.2142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rakowski W, Clark MA, Ehrich B (1999) Smoking and cancer screening for women ages 42–75: associations in the 1990–1994 National Health Interview Surveys. Prev Med (Baltim) 29(6 I):487–495

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Akinlotan M, Bolin JN, Helduser J, Ojinnaka C, Lichorad A, McClellan D (2017) Cervical cancer screening barriers and risk factor knowledge among uninsured women. J Community Health 42(4):770–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-017-0316-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2012) Rationale for periodic reporting on the use of selected adult clinical preventive service - United States. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 61 Suppl, [Online]. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22695456.

  22. Klabunde CN, Cronin KA, Breen N, Waldron WR, Ambs AH, Nadel MR (2011) Trends in colorectal cancer test use among vulnerable populations in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 20(8):1611–1621. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0220

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ronda Henry-Tillman, M.D., Michael Preston, Ph.D., Pebbles Fagan, Ph.D., Sharp Malak, M.D., and Jennifer Dillaha, M.D. for their advice in creating the online survey, Karen Yeary, Ph.D. for conducting the focus group, and Benjamin J. Lieblong, Ph.D. for critical review of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Arkansas Biosciences Institute (the major component of the Tobacco Settlement Proceeds Act of 2000), the Drs. Mae and Anderson Nettleship Endowed Chair of Oncologic Pathology (US 31005156), and the National Institutes of Health (U54 TR001629, UL1 TR003107, and R01 CA 143130).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Pathology and Biostatistics, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W. Markham St. Slot 502, Little Rock, AR, 72205, USA

    Sumit K. Shah, Maggie Jones-Carr, Milan Bimali & Mayumi Nakagawa

  2. Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA

    L. Joseph Su

Authors
  1. Sumit K. Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maggie Jones-Carr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Milan Bimali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Joseph Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mayumi Nakagawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mayumi Nakagawa.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

Separate Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals were obtained for the online survey and the focus groups.

Consent to Participate

For the online survey, clicking on the link embedded in the email served as an informed consent and confirmation that the respondent is at least 18 years old. Focus group participants were provided with an information sheet about the study which served as informed consent.

Consent for Publication

Data are being published in a de-identified manner.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 588 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shah, S.K., Jones-Carr, M., Bimali, M. et al. An Online Survey and Focus Groups for Promoting Cancer Prevention Measures. J Canc Educ 37, 1782–1789 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-021-02027-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-021-02027-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation