Three-year follow-up study of women who participated in a cervical cancer screening intervention while in prison.
OBJECTIVE
This study describes rescreening following a prison cervical cancer screening intervention: the numbers of women who received rescreening during the three-year follow-up period; their timing of rescreening in relationship to intervention follow-up recommendations; and socio-demographic factors associated with rescreening.


METHODS
Socio-demographic information was collected from Corrections Branch records. Clinical and risk factor information was obtained by a self-administered questionnaire. Pap screening histories were collected from Cervical Cancer Screening Program (CCSP) client records using the client ID number for Pap smears taken during the intervention period, during the three-year follow-up period, and during the 30-month period preceding the intervention period. Results were entered in Excel and responses summarized with frequency tables; bivariate analysis of categoric variables was done using chi-square tests of independence.


RESULTS
During the three-year follow-up period, only 28 (21%) of 138 women who participated in a prison cervical cancer screening intervention were rescreened within 6 months of the recommendation received at intervention Pap test. Women with fewer than 5 multiple names (aliases) were more likely to be rescreened (p = 0.02). Educational level approached statistical significance (p = 0.05), with women with least education receiving highest rescreening. There was no relationship between rescreening and ethnicity, injection drug use, having borne children and current methadone treatment.


CONCLUSIONS
Only 50% of women who participated in a specifically designed prison screening intervention were rescreened during the subsequent three years. Further work is needed to design, implement and evaluate follow-up initiatives of community cervical cancer screening programs for women who are at higher risk of developing cervical dysplasia.
Martin
Ruth Elwood
RE
Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. ruth.martin@familymed.ubc.ca
Hislop
T Gregory
TG
Moravan
Veronika
V
Grams
Garry D
GD
Calam
Betty
B