Pap Testing Among Vietnamese Women: Health Care System and Physician Factors
- 90 Downloads
Cervical cancer occurs more frequently among Vietnamese Americans than women of any other race/ethnicity. In addition, previous studies in California have documented low Papanicolaou (Pap) testing rates in Vietnamese communities. This study focused on health care system factors and physician characteristics associated with recent cervical cancer screening among Vietnamese women. A population-based survey was conducted in Seattle during 2002. In-person interviews were conducted by bilingual, bicultural female survey workers. The survey response rate was 82% and 518 women were included in the analysis. Seventy-four percent of the respondents reported having been screened for cervical cancer on at least one occasion, and 64% reported a Pap smear within the previous 2 years. Women with a regular doctor were more likely to have been recently screened than those without a regular doctor (OR=2.33, 95% CI=1.45–3.74). Among those with a regular doctor, having a male physician, receiving care at a private doctor's office (rather than a community, hospital, or multi-specialty clinic), and concern about the cost of health care were independently associated with lower screening rates. Physician ethnicity was not associated with recent Pap smear receipt. The findings support targeted interventions for Vietnamese women without a regular physician and private doctors' offices that serve Vietnamese Americans. The availability of low cost screening services should be publicized in Vietnamese communities.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.US Census Bureau. US Summary: 2000. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, 2002, p. 9.Google Scholar
- 3.National Cancer Institute. Racial/Ethnic Patterns of Cancer in the United States, 1988–1992. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health, 1996, p. 37.Google Scholar
- 4.Hiatt RA, Pasick RJ, Pe´rez-Stable EJ, et al. Pathways to early cancer detection in the multiethnic population of the San Francisco Bay Area. Health Educ Q 1996; 23:10–27.Google Scholar
- 7.Department of Commerce. 1990 Census of Population and Housing: Population and Housing Characteristics for Census Tracts and Block Numbering Areas-Seattle, WA PMSA. Washington DC: Department of Commerce, 1993, pp. 161–222.Google Scholar
- 10.US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1996, pp. 269–276.Google Scholar
- 13.Rosner B. Fundamentals of Biostatistics. Boston: Duxbury, 2000, pp. 302–367.Google Scholar
- 14.Breslow NS, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume 1: The Analysis of Case–Control Studies. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1980, pp. 192–246.Google Scholar
- 15.Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 2000, pp. 323–324.Google Scholar
- 22.Mayer WJ, Beardall RW. Translating science into practice: cancer prevention in primary care medicine. In P Greenwald, BS Kramer and DL Weed (Eds.), Cancer Prevention and Control. New York: Marcell Dekker, 1995, pp. 411–433.Google Scholar
- 24.Frey JH. Survey Research by Telephone. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1989, pp. 10–12.Google Scholar
- 25.Wilcox JB. The interaction of refusal and not-at-home sources of non-response bias. J Market Res 1977; XIV:592–597.Google Scholar