Cargando…

Process evaluation of health fairs promoting cancer screenings

BACKGROUND: Low income and uninsured individuals often have lower adherence to cancer screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer. Health fairs are a common community outreach strategy used to provide cancer-related health education and services. METHODS: This study was a process evaluation...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Escoffery, Cam, Liang, Shuting, Rodgers, Kirsten, Haardoerfer, Regine, Hennessy, Grace, Gilbertson, Kendra, Heredia, Natalia I., Gatus, Leticia A., Fernandez, Maria E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5735813/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29254486
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3867-3
_version_ 1783287274717315072
author Escoffery, Cam
Liang, Shuting
Rodgers, Kirsten
Haardoerfer, Regine
Hennessy, Grace
Gilbertson, Kendra
Heredia, Natalia I.
Gatus, Leticia A.
Fernandez, Maria E.
author_facet Escoffery, Cam
Liang, Shuting
Rodgers, Kirsten
Haardoerfer, Regine
Hennessy, Grace
Gilbertson, Kendra
Heredia, Natalia I.
Gatus, Leticia A.
Fernandez, Maria E.
author_sort Escoffery, Cam
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Low income and uninsured individuals often have lower adherence to cancer screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer. Health fairs are a common community outreach strategy used to provide cancer-related health education and services. METHODS: This study was a process evaluation of seven health fairs focused on cancer screening across the U.S. We conducted key-informant interviews with the fair coordinator and conducted baseline and follow-up surveys with fair participants to describe characteristics of participants as well as their experiences. We collected baseline data with participants at the health fairs and telephone follow-up surveys 6 months following the fair. RESULTS: Attendance across the seven health fairs ranged from 41 to 212 participants. Most fairs provided group or individual education, print materials and cancer screening during the event. Overall, participants rated health fairs as very good and participants reported that the staff was knowledgeable and that they liked the materials distributed. After the fairs, about 60% of participants, who were reached at follow-up, had read the materials provided and had conversations with others about cancer screening, and 41% talked to their doctors about screening. Based on findings from evaluation including participant data and coordinator interviews, we describe 6 areas in planning for health fairs that may increase their effectiveness. These include: 1) use of a theoretical framework for health promotion to guide educational content and activities provided, 2) considering the community characteristics, 3) choosing a relevant setting, 4) promotion of the event, 5) considerations of the types of services to deliver, and 6) evaluation of the health fair. CONCLUSIONS: The events reported varied in reach and the participants represented diverse races and lower income populations overall. Most health fairs offered education, print materials and onsite cancer screening. Participants reported general satisfaction with these events and were motivated through their participation to read educational materials or discuss screening with providers. Public health professionals can benefit from this process evaluation and recommendations for designing and evaluating health fairs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5735813
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57358132017-12-21 Process evaluation of health fairs promoting cancer screenings Escoffery, Cam Liang, Shuting Rodgers, Kirsten Haardoerfer, Regine Hennessy, Grace Gilbertson, Kendra Heredia, Natalia I. Gatus, Leticia A. Fernandez, Maria E. BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: Low income and uninsured individuals often have lower adherence to cancer screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer. Health fairs are a common community outreach strategy used to provide cancer-related health education and services. METHODS: This study was a process evaluation of seven health fairs focused on cancer screening across the U.S. We conducted key-informant interviews with the fair coordinator and conducted baseline and follow-up surveys with fair participants to describe characteristics of participants as well as their experiences. We collected baseline data with participants at the health fairs and telephone follow-up surveys 6 months following the fair. RESULTS: Attendance across the seven health fairs ranged from 41 to 212 participants. Most fairs provided group or individual education, print materials and cancer screening during the event. Overall, participants rated health fairs as very good and participants reported that the staff was knowledgeable and that they liked the materials distributed. After the fairs, about 60% of participants, who were reached at follow-up, had read the materials provided and had conversations with others about cancer screening, and 41% talked to their doctors about screening. Based on findings from evaluation including participant data and coordinator interviews, we describe 6 areas in planning for health fairs that may increase their effectiveness. These include: 1) use of a theoretical framework for health promotion to guide educational content and activities provided, 2) considering the community characteristics, 3) choosing a relevant setting, 4) promotion of the event, 5) considerations of the types of services to deliver, and 6) evaluation of the health fair. CONCLUSIONS: The events reported varied in reach and the participants represented diverse races and lower income populations overall. Most health fairs offered education, print materials and onsite cancer screening. Participants reported general satisfaction with these events and were motivated through their participation to read educational materials or discuss screening with providers. Public health professionals can benefit from this process evaluation and recommendations for designing and evaluating health fairs. BioMed Central 2017-12-18 /pmc/articles/PMC5735813/ /pubmed/29254486 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3867-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Escoffery, Cam
Liang, Shuting
Rodgers, Kirsten
Haardoerfer, Regine
Hennessy, Grace
Gilbertson, Kendra
Heredia, Natalia I.
Gatus, Leticia A.
Fernandez, Maria E.
Process evaluation of health fairs promoting cancer screenings
title Process evaluation of health fairs promoting cancer screenings
title_full Process evaluation of health fairs promoting cancer screenings
title_fullStr Process evaluation of health fairs promoting cancer screenings
title_full_unstemmed Process evaluation of health fairs promoting cancer screenings
title_short Process evaluation of health fairs promoting cancer screenings
title_sort process evaluation of health fairs promoting cancer screenings
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5735813/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29254486
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3867-3
work_keys_str_mv AT escofferycam processevaluationofhealthfairspromotingcancerscreenings
AT liangshuting processevaluationofhealthfairspromotingcancerscreenings
AT rodgerskirsten processevaluationofhealthfairspromotingcancerscreenings
AT haardoerferregine processevaluationofhealthfairspromotingcancerscreenings
AT hennessygrace processevaluationofhealthfairspromotingcancerscreenings
AT gilbertsonkendra processevaluationofhealthfairspromotingcancerscreenings
AT heredianataliai processevaluationofhealthfairspromotingcancerscreenings
AT gatusleticiaa processevaluationofhealthfairspromotingcancerscreenings
AT fernandezmariae processevaluationofhealthfairspromotingcancerscreenings