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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |