Health education models application by peer group for improving breast cancer screening among Iranian women with a family history of breast cancer: A randomized control trial

Abstract

Background: Studies have shown that participation of Iranian women with family history of breast cancer in screening service is low. This investigation has evaluated the effectiveness of health models according to peer group in improving clinical breast exam (CBE) among Iranian women with a family history of breast cancer. Methods: This was a randomized control trial conducted during June and August 2015 in Isfahan. A total of 54 women were assigned into intervention and 53 to control group. Women 20 years or older with an affected relative were included. CBE screening, stage of change screening, knowledge, and belief were considered as outcomes after educational program. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and descriptive statistics by SPSS. Significance level was set at 0.025. Results: Investigation was completed by 98 women; and we considered 22% as effect size. Three months after the intervention, screening practice was 52% in interventional versus 18% in control group (p<0.001). Knowledge and all health belief subscales scores were significantly affected by time factor and time-group interaction (p<0.001). The effect of group factor was significantly related to knowledge score and perceived sensitivity, benefits, and health motivation subscales. Three months after the intervention, most women in the intermediation group were in the action stage of CBE compared to the controls who continued to be in contemplation stage (p<0.001). Conclusion: Peer group interventions, which can be organized by health models, have positive effects on CBE in women with positive history of breast cancer.

The Effectiveness of Educational Interventions on Breast Cancer Screening Uptake, Knowledge, and Beliefs among Women: A Systematic Review

“…As shown in Table 2 , the gathered studies were published between 2014 and 2019, and were conducted in Malaysia (n = 1) [ 16 ], Iran (n = 7) [ 19 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ], United States (n = 6) [ 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 ], Turkey (n = 4) [ 10 , 11 , 59 , 60 ], Israel (n = 1) [ 9 ], United Arab Emirates (n = 1) [ 61 ], China (n = 1) [ 62 ], and India (n = 1) [ 63 ]. In addition, the participants were aged 18 years and above.…”

“…As illustrated in Table 2 , the conceptual framework was explained in 18 studies. Multiple models were used as a guide in the intervention development of five studies, where Fathollahi-Dehkordi and Farajzadegan [ 48 ], Lee-Lin et al in 2015b [ 53 ], and Lee-Lin et al in 2015a [ 57 ] employed the HBM and TTM, while Taymoori et al [ 52 ] employed the HBM and The TPB and Tuzcu et al [ 10 ] employed the HBM and the HPM.…”

“…As shown in Table 2 and Table 3 , studies assigned the participants either into intervention or control groups individually (n = 13) [ 9 , 10 , 16 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 60 ] or through a unit-based approach (n = 3) [19. 51, 54].…”

“…With multiple intervention strategies, these programs were mostly performed in community and healthcare settings. All studies reported the utilization of linguistically appropriate methods in delivering interventions, of either spoken and written materials (n = 16) [ 9 , 10 , 16 , 19 , 47 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ] or only spoken materials (n = 6) [ 11 , 48 , 50 , 55 , 58 , 63 ]. Furthermore, the program content in most of the studies mainly covered the key messages on normal breast anatomy, knowledge of BC and screening methods, knowledge on the significance and usefulness of screening methods, and health beliefs about BC and BCS.…”

Breast Cancer Screening Strategies and Indicators in Iran, A Systematic Review

“…This category includes the results of statistical studies in the eld of breast cancer prevention (Table 3) , and ASSISTS instrument and model. In two studies, the response rate to BSE and CBE ranged 81-100% (104,109). Participation rate in the screening program was reported from 3.8% to 16.8% in two studies (53,110).…”