Brfss 2015 codebook12/17/2023 Prior to the focus group, participants provided verbal consent for participation. We invited participants who had completed the entire survey and who gave permission for us to re-contact them we contacted participants until we finished scheduling all three focus groups (total n approached = 21). Thus, the final analytic sample included 100 participants.įor the qualitative phase, we held three focus groups with survey participants ( n = 16). Of the remaining 115 eligible women, 15 did not complete the survey all of these non-completers accessed the survey online. In total, we screened 150 women, 35 of whom were ineligible (24/35 were ineligible due to living outside of the eligible counties). At the conclusion of the survey, participants received a copy of the consent form, a thank you note, and a $10 gift card (physical or electronic versions were available). The survey included 53 questions and took an average of 18 min to complete (including eligibility screening, consent procedures, and survey administration). Data collection took place between June 2019, and April 2020. Study inclusion criteria were (1) female gender, (2) age 50–65 years, (3) living in one of the eligible counties, and (4) able to complete a survey or participate in a focus group in English.įor the quantitative phase, participants provided implied consent before completing the survey, which was either administered by an interviewer (in-person or by telephone) or self-administered online. Potential participants completed a brief eligibility screening by paper, phone, or Internet. Recruitment modalities included study flyers posted in central locations, in-person contact at clinics and community events, and social media posts about the study. Eligible counties were (1) non-metropolitan according to the 2010 United States Department of Agriculture rural–urban continuum codes, and (2) above the national median for the dissimilarity index assessing residential segregation for non-Hispanic whites versus all others in census tracts within counties, using the 2010 United States Census Bureau data. We recruited women ages 50–65 (i.e., typically eligible for routine screening for cervical and colorectal cancers according to US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines in effect in June, 2019) from community settings in 14 eligible counties in Pennsylvania for a mixed-methods, explanatory sequential study. Future interventions to promote screening can target these barriers. While cancer screening was common in rural, segregated counties, women who reported both environmental and personal barriers to screening had lower uptake. Qualitatively, three themes emerged regarding barriers to screening: privacy concerns, logistical barriers, and lack of trust in adequacy of healthcare services. Factors interacted such that compounding barriers were associated with lower odds of screening (e.g., insurance status and healthcare mistrust: interaction p = .02 for cervical interaction p = .05 for colorectal). Quantitatively, 89% of participants were up-to-date for cervical screening, and 65% for colorectal screening. We sought to identify personal (e.g., healthcare mistrust) and environmental (e.g., travel time to healthcare providers) factors related to colorectal and cervical cancer screening. We recruited women (primarily non-Hispanic White) from 14 rural, segregated counties in a Northeastern US state for an explanatory sequential study: 100 women (ages 50–65 years) completed a survey, and 16 women participated in focus groups.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |