Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 7–22 | Cite as

The North Carolina Breast Cancer Screening Program: foundations and design of a model for reaching older, minority, rural women

  • Jo Anne L. Earp
  • Mary Altpeter
  • Linda Mayne
  • Claire I. Viadro
  • Michael S. O'Malley
Article

Summary

Breast cancer screening programs do not reach all women at the same rate. Screening mammography use varies according to sociodemographic characteristics; mammography utilization is highest among women in their fifties but then decreases with age. In North Carolina, breast cancer is a particular burden for Black and lower-income women. Black women are more likely to be diagnosed with late stage disease, and their rate of breast cancer mortality is higher than it is for White women even though the incidence in White women is greater. Older, Black, and low-income women are less likely to obtain screening by mammography and clinical breast examination. The Black-White gap is even more pronounced among rural women, in part because they are more likely to be poor.

The North Carolina Breast Cancer Screening Program (NC-BCSP) was established to increase the rate of regular mammography screening by an absolute 20% in 3 years among older Black women ages 50 and older in five rural counties in the eastern part of the state. In this paper, we describe the genesis of this comprehensive community intervention model, highlighting the behavioral science constructs, health education principles, and theories of behavioral and organizational change that form its conceptual foundation. NC-BCSP's theoretical foundations include the social ecological perspective, the PRECEDE model of health promotion, the Health Belief Model of individual change, and the “stages of change” transtheoretical model. We also review the experiences and lessons learned from two previous outreach initiatives in North Carolina that provided valuable “lessons” in the development of the NC-BCSP intervention model. In the second half of the paper, we describe the actual NC-BCSP interventions, activities, and evaluation tools, citing specific examples of how the underlying theories are implemented.

NC-BCSP's goal goes beyond individual behavior change to raise low mammography screening rates among Black women in rural North Carolina. Its ultimate objective is to create linkages across agencies, and between agencies and communities, that will endure after the research project ends.

Key words

breast cancer mammography screening rural and minority women social ecological theory community intervention 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Miller BA, Ries LAG, Hankey BF, Kosary CL, Edwards BK (eds): Cancer Statistics Review: 1973–1989. National Cancer Institute NIH Pub. No. 92-2789, 1992Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Centers for Disease Control: Deaths from Breast Cancer — United States, 1991. Morbid Mortal Weekly Rep 43:273–281, 1994Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leserman J, Cilenti D, Hall SP, Hamby SL, Murphy CE, Berkman ND: In Sickness and in Health: The Status of Women's Health in North Carolina. North Carolina Equity, Raleigh NC, 1993, pp 33–44Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Central Cancer Registry: Cancer Incidence in North Carolina: Detailed Analyses 1990. State Center for Health and Environmental Statistics, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh NC, 1993Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    US Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics: Health, United States, 1989 (DHHS publication No. PHS 90-1232). US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1990Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    White E, Urban N, Taylor V: Mammography utilization, public health impact, and cost-effectiveness in the United States.In: Omenn GS, Fielding JE, Lave LB (eds): The Annual Review of Public Health, Vol. 14. Annual Reviews Inc., Palo Alto CA, 1993, pp 605–634Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Centers for Disease Control: Implementation of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act: 1992. Progress report to Congress. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, 1994Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Breen N, Kessler L: Changes in the use of screening mammography: Evidence from the 1987 and 1990 National Health Interview Surveys. Am J Public Health 84:62–67, 1994Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harris L and Associates, Inc. The Commonwealth Fund Survey of Women's Health, New York NY, 1993Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fletcher SW, Harris RP, Gonzalez JJ, Degnan D, Lannin DR, Strecher VJ, Pilgrim C, Quade D, Earp JA, Clark RL: Increasing mammography utilization: A controlled study. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:112–120, 1993Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K: An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Quarterly 15:351–377, 1988Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anderson D, O'Donnell M: Toward a health promotion research agenda: “State of the Science” reviews. Am J Health Promotion 8:462–465, 1994Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Green LW, Kreuter MW: Health Promotion Planning: An Educational and Environmental Approach. Mayfield Publishing Co, Mountain View CA, 1991, pp 22–43Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rimer BK, Trock B, Lerman C, King E, Engstrom PF: Why do some women get regular mammograms? Am J Prev Med 7:69–74, 1991Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosenstock IM: The historical origins of the health belief model. Health Educ Monogr 2:354–395, 1974Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC: Measuring process of change: Applications to the cessation of smoking. J Consult Clinic Psychol 56:520–528, 1988Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rakowski W, Fulton JP, Feldman JP: Women's decision making about mammography: A replication of the relationship between stages of adoption and decisional balance. Health Psychology 15(3):209–214, 1993Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steckler A, Goodman RM: How to institutionalize health promotion programs. Am J Health Promotion 3(4):34–44, Spring 1989Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goodman RM, Steckler A: A model for the institutionalization of health promotion programs. Fam Community Health 11:63–78, 1989Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Loud LM: Community Health Advocacy Program; CHAP Development Guide. Center for Health Services Research and Development, East Carolina University, Greenville NC, May, 1991, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eng E: The Save Our Sisters Project: A social network strategy for reaching rural black women. Cancer Supplement 72(3):1071–1077, 1993Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tessaro I, Eng E, Smith J: Breast cancer screening in older African-American women: Qualitative research findings. Am J Health Promotion 8:286–293, 1994Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eng E, Smith J: Natural helping functions of lay health advisors in breast cancer education. Breast Cancer Res Treat (this issue)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eng E, Smith J: Natural helping: The community's way to break the silence about cancer among older African American women. Presentation to the President's Cancer Panel, New York NY, November 15, 1993Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eng E, Young R: Lay health advisors as community change agents. Fam Community Health 15:24–40, 1992Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stokols D: Establishing and maintaining healthy environments: Toward a social ecology of health promotion. Amer Psychologist 47:6–21, 1992Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Berger P, Neuhaus R: To Empower People: The Role of Mediating Structures in Public Policy. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington DC, 1977Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Herman CJ, Shaw JE, Tessaro IA, Geise E, Bynoe M: Cancer education and training needs of public health nurses: The North Carolina Public Health Nurse Prevention Survey. Morbid Mortal Weekly Rep (in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jo Anne L. Earp
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mary Altpeter
    • 2
  • Linda Mayne
    • 2
  • Claire I. Viadro
    • 1
  • Michael S. O'Malley
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Health Education and Health Behavior, School of Public Health, CB#7400University of North Carolina at Chapel HillUSA
  2. 2.UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, School of Medicine, CB#7400University of North Carolina at Chapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations