Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2024 Sep 26:12:1377173.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1377173. eCollection 2024.

A health belief model-based community health education on mammography screening among reproductive-aged women in Ethiopia: a randomized controlled trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

A health belief model-based community health education on mammography screening among reproductive-aged women in Ethiopia: a randomized controlled trial

Feleke Doyore Agide et al. Front Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: Early intervention in mammography use prevents breast cancer-related deaths. Therefore, this study aimed to apply health education interventions to mammography use in reproductive-aged women.

Methods: This was a sequential exploratory design using qualitative and quantitative methods. The qualitative part used to gain insights into the design and development of interventions. For the randomized trial, a sample of 405 participants was recruited in each arm. The mean difference of interventions on the study variables was determined using a general linear model for repeated measures (ANOVA). For dichotomous variables, nonparametric tests (Cochran Q) were used. Path analysis was used to observe how the constructs of the Health Belief Model interacted. We registered PACTR database (https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/): "PACTR201802002902886."

Results: The study found that there was a strong interplay between perceptions of mammography screening and the intervention, showing that the likelihood of mammography use and comprehensive knowledge increased from baseline to endpoint (p < 0.005). Likewise, health motivation and all constructs of the health belief model had a statistically significant mean difference between the intervention and control groups (p < 0.005). However, the mean value of perceived barriers in the intervention group was statistically significantly reduced after three and six months (mean difference = -2.054 between Measure 1 and measure 2 and -1.942 between Measure 2 and Measure 3). The hypothesized causal paths effect of the model was explained by 64.3% that shows there is strong relationship of the variables significantly (p < 0.005).

Conclusion: The study found that model-based mammography screening interventions had a significant impact at various time periods. We recommend future researchers consider the intensity and range of information to advance the field and figure out the problem while investigating the dose and peak of the intervention.

Keywords: health belief model; health education; intervention; mammography screening; randomized trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT flow diagram of the progress through the phases of a parallel randomized trial of two groups (that is, enrolment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and data analysis). Available at: http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement/flow-diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Knowledge of the participants about breast cancer and mammography screening in intervention and control groups.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The effect of intervention on susceptibility of the participants across the study districts.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The effect of intervention on severity of the participants across the study districts.
Figure 5
Figure 5
The effect of intervention on benefits of the participants across the study districts.
Figure 6
Figure 6
The effect of intervention on barriers of the participants across the study districts.
Figure 7
Figure 7
The effect of intervention on cues to action of the participants across the study districts.
Figure 8
Figure 8
The effect of intervention on self-efficacy of the participants across the study districts.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Final structure model with all HBM hypothesized causal paths. **p < 0.001.

Similar articles

References

    1. Autier P. Overestimation of the benefit-to-harm ratio of risk-based mammography screening in the United Kingdom. JAMA Oncol. (2019) 5:428. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6501, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pashayan N, Morris S, Gilbert FJ, Pharoah PD. Cost-effectiveness and benefit-to-harm ratio of risk-stratified screening for breast cancer: a life-table model. JAMA Oncol. (2018) 4:1504–10. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1901, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mandrik O, Zielonke N, Meheus F, Severens JL, Guha N, Herrero Acosta R, et al. . Systematic reviews as a ‘lens of evidence’: determinants of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. Int J Cancer. (2019) 145:994–1006. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32211 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lv L, Zhao B, Kang J, Li S, Wu H. Trend of disease burden and risk factors of breast cancer in developing countries and territories, from 1990 to 2019: results from the global burden of disease study 2019. Front Public Health. (2023) 10:1078191. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1078191, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mubarik S, Yu Y, Wang F, Malik SS, Liu X, Fawad M, et al. . Epidemiological and sociodemographic transitions of female breast cancer incidence, death, case fatality and DALYs in 21 world regions and globally, from 1990 to 2017: an age-period-cohort analysis. J Adv Res. (2022) 37:185–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2021.07.012 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

LinkOut - more resources

  NODES
COMMUNITY 3
twitter 2