We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In light of calls to engage community health workers (CHWs) in the delivery of cervical cancer screening innovations, this study explores CHW perspectives on i) barriers to cervical cancer screening in a predominantly Hispanic community in Lake County, Indiana, the county with the highest cervical mortality in the state; and ii) the acceptability and feasibility of CHW-facilitated human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling as a means of reducing screening disparities.
Methods:
In 2021, in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 CHWs employed by Lake County community-based organizations including clinics, schools, and faith-based organizations.
Results:
Harnessing CHWs’ voices as insiders with knowledge of their communities’ health landscape, our analysis identified multilevel barriers to screening that spanned individual, interpersonal, and community levels of the socio-ecological model. CHW-facilitated HPV self-sampling shows promise of mitigating several barriers to cervical cancer screening. Privacy, time saved, and comfort were perceived to be facilitators for acceptability, with concerns about the novelty of this approach and trust in provider (as opposed to CHW) expertise emerging as key barriers. In terms of feasibility, synergies with existing CHW work, and some community members' prior experience with self-sampling were found to be facilitators, while CHW’s time limitations and self-efficacy in providing adequate medical support were areas of concern. Considerations for adoption included CHW training, gender concordance, safety, and respect, among others.
Conclusion:
This study provides critical insights from CHWs as key stakeholders on a screening model that directly engages them, which can inform implementation to increase screening in medically-underserved communities in the US.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.