{"id":7517,"date":"2022-12-13T11:11:01","date_gmt":"2022-12-13T11:11:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/barriers-to-the-hpv-vaccination-and-cervical-cancer-screening-for-bame-women\/"},"modified":"2022-12-13T11:11:01","modified_gmt":"2022-12-13T11:11:01","slug":"barriers-to-the-hpv-vaccination-and-cervical-cancer-screening-for-bame-women","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/barriers-to-the-hpv-vaccination-and-cervical-cancer-screening-for-bame-women\/","title":{"rendered":"Barriers to the HPV Vaccination and Cervical Cancer Screening for BAME Women"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

What are the Barriers of Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
\nVaccination and Cervical Cancer Screening amongst Minority Women age 12-26?<\/p>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

Background: <\/strong>Minority women systematically experience socio-economic disadvantages, which put them in the face of greater obstacles in attaining optimal health. Approximately 44 million women in the United States, nearly one third of all women in America, self-identify as women of a minority racial or ethnic group. Yet, minority women fare worse than non-Hispanic white women across a broad range of measures, with some of the largest disparities being that of HPV-related cervical cancer mortality<\/a>. Objective: <\/strong>The objective is to emphasize the barriers of care in relation to cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccination, as well as examine patterns in barriers like demographic, cultural, and health belief factors amongst minority women.Methods: <\/strong>The data collection review and process was based on article review factors that were associated with HPV vaccine acceptability, initiation, and series completion among adolescent and young adult women of different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups in the United States. Results: <\/strong>Selected characteristics of the included studies contended that an estimated 12,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer annually in the United States, and 4500,000 women worldwide develop cervical cancer each year. Higher rates of cervical cancer are found in US regions with large minority and impoverished populations. Conclusion: <\/strong>It is imperative for clinicians to progress minority women screening and early detection. Further intervention models need to reflect multifactorial determinants of screening utilization.<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

While there have been strides in HPV and cervical cancer prevention efforts, many minority women across the board still experience significant barriers to care. For example, women from rural and poor communities<\/a> tend to have health illiteracy in regard to their own self-care, which also includes their mistrust for the healthcare system. Additionally, many minority women simply lack financial access to care. Socio-economic disadvantages (i.e. race, class, gender, education, occupation, etc.) are the underlying issues. Though many health efforts are made by health professionals, and health ramifications like informative technologies and preventative care strategies have been achieved, there is a continual socio-economic and racial imbalance with both the diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer, especially the strains directly influenced by HPV. <\/p>\n

Specific Aims<\/h3>\n

Our specific aims are to first identify Health
\ncare barriers and challenges to cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccination
\nwithin the population of minority women. We also want to uncover minority
\nwomen, health care provider & health care system risk factors for cervical
\ncancer screening & HPV vaccination, as well as, health care challenges and opportunities in improving cervical cancer
\nscreening rates amongst minority women. Lastly, we want to pinpoint the nurses\u2019 roles in preventing cervical cancer in
\nunderserved racial and or ethnic populations.<\/p>\n

Methods<\/h2>\n

Search Strategy<\/h3>\n

In June 2017,we searched
\nfour electronic bibliographic databases (Google scholar, Medline, Pubmed and Cinahl) using the search terms \u2018HPV\u2019 \u2018cervical
\ncancer\u2019 \u2018pap smear\u2019 \u2018minority women\u2019 \u2018ethnic women\u2019 and \u2018health disparities\u2019. All
\nof the studies identified during the database search were assessed for
\nrelevance to the review based on the information provided in the title,
\nabstract, and description of key words and terms. A full report was retrieved
\nfor all studies that met the inclusion criteria.<\/p>\n

Inclusion Criteria <\/h3>\n

The data collection review and process was
\nbased on article review factors that were associated with HPV vaccine
\nacceptability, initiation, and series completion among adolescent and young
\nadult women of different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups in the United
\nStates.<\/p>\n

We reviewed relevant peer-reviewed and
\nevidence-based qualitative literature in order to identify current vaccination trends,
\nrates and factors associated with HPV and cervical cancer. Study findings a related to race (black, Latina,
\nAsian), and
\nsocio-economic disadvantages were summarized.<\/p>\n

Eligibility Criteria<\/h3>\n

Understanding current vaccination trends and
\nthe barriers to series initiation and completion, <\/strong>the Centers for Disease
\nControl and Prevention (CDC)
\nrecommends that 11 to 12 year old adolescents receive two doses of the HPV
\nvaccine in order to protect against themselves against cancers that are caused
\nby HPV. <\/strong>The HPV vaccine series can be given to girls
\nbeginning at age 9 years old, but many parents believe this age is too immature
\nfor a sexually transmitted disease vaccination. Additionally, it is recommended
\nby the CDC that girls and women age 13 through 26 years of age who have not yet
\nbeen vaccinated or completed the vaccine series to be given the HPV vaccination
\nimmediately to provide HPV-cancer related protection. <\/strong><\/p>\n

In understanding HPV vaccination parameters, it
\nis essential that we too recognize gaps in knowledge and all the misconceptions
\nsurrounding HPV vaccination and cervical cancer. <\/strong>When
\nthe vaccine is given prior to HPV exposure, it is highly effective in
\npreventing infection from two high-risk genotypes (HPV-16\/HPV-18) of HPV, which
\ncauses approximately 70 percent of cervical cancers, and two low-risk
\n(HPV-6\/HPV-11) genotypes that are responsible for over 90 percent of all
\ngenital warts.<\/p>\n

As
\nwe assessed the appropriateness of our criteria interests, we focused on Black\/African-American, Latina and non-white
\nadolescent women age 12-26, minority
\nteen women reported having sexual intercourse, adolescent women who have
\ncompleted puberty, and low income and health care illiterate young women, who
\nare too uninsured or have limited access. <\/p>\n

Quality Assessment<\/h3>\n

The methodological quality is significant to our
\nstudy. It was organized and detailed oriented. It presented evidence that there
\nis a need for increasing HPV
\nvaccination among young minority women. The failure to achieve equitable
\nvaccination has exacerbated health disparities in HPV and cervical cancer
\nincidence and mortality. Research suggests that low- income and minority women
\nare disadvantaged due to the difference in cervical cancer screening, practices
\nand beliefs, as well as healthcare access barriers and systemic risk factors. <\/p>\n

We used the \u2018Research
\nand Quality Scoring Method\u2019 by Sackett and Haynes, the Jadad scale, and the
\nitems published by Cho and Bero to rate the quality of each study (Table 1).
\nThe range of total quality scores was from 0 to 9. Studies that ranged from 0 to
\n5 were considered low quality, whereas studies that ranged from 6-9 were
\nconsidered high quality. Two raters independently coded variables using
\nMicrosoft Excel. Discrepancies were identified and resolved amongst our team
\nmembers. <\/p>\n

\"\"
Table 1. Study quality ratings <\/figcaption><\/img><\/figure>\n

Statistical Analysis<\/h3>\n

Race\/ethnicity and low socio-economic status
\nare known predictors of late-stage diagnosis of cervical cancer and are
\nimportant predictors of cancer mortality.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the
\nUnited States, approximately 12,000 women develop cervical cancer and 44000
\ndie of the disease each year, with higher incidence and mortality rates
\nreported in low-income minority populations. <\/p>\n

HPV
\nvaccination has been shown to reduce the prevalence of high-risk HPV infection
\namong teen women and thus, has the potential to decrease the risks of cervical
\ncancer among vaccinated young women. <\/p>\n

According
\nto preceding surveillance and qualitative studies, it is indicated that a
\ndecline in the annual rate of high-grade cervical cancer, from 834 per 100,000
\nin 2008 to 688 per 100,000 in 2014, among women aged 21 to 24 years, which reflects the impact of HPV vaccination. However,
\ndeclines were not significant in areas with high proportions of minority
\nwomen (i.e blacks, Latinas) and\/or people living in low-income areas.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Results<\/h2>\n

Included Studies<\/h3>\n

The search yielded nearly 500 potential article titles for review, yet less than 70 were relevant to our interests. And of that 70, about 20 were dated within the last 10 years. Accordingly, less than 20 seemed more characteristic of our research interests and provided adequate information to our research question. <\/p>\n

Description of Studies<\/h3>\n

Selected
\ncharacteristics of the included studies contended that an estimated 12,000 women are diagnosed with
\ncervical cancer annually in the United States, and 4500,000 women worldwide
\ndevelop cervical cancer each year. In the United States, cervical cancer
\nincidence is nearly twice as high in counties with poverty levels > 20%
\ncompared with those with poverty levels <10%, and cervical cancer incidence and
\nmortality are 25% and 95% higher, respectively, among black women and 53% and
\n41% higher for Latina women compared with that of white women. Rates of
\ncervical cancer are inversely proportional to screening and treatment access,
\nand poor and minority women face more barriers to health care access.
\nTherefore, higher rates of cervical cancer are found in US regions with large
\nminority and impoverished populations. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Quality Assessment<\/h3>\n

It is crucial to understand current vaccination
\ntrends and barriers to the HPV vaccination series initiation, in order to
\ninfluence effective strategies to improve HPV vaccine completion and to reduce
\ndisparities in cervical cancer.<\/p>\n

All studies assessed
\nliterature review aims to identify barriers and facilitators of equitable
\nuptake of HPV vaccination and cervical cancer prevention among low-income and
\nethnic minority young women. Outcome measures revealed that approximately
\n44 million women in the United States, nearly one third of all women in
\nAmerica, self-identify as women of a minority racial or ethnic group. Consequently, it is
\nimperative that we not only improve HPV vaccination rates overall, but also focus on high-risk populations to
\nprevent an increase in HPV and cervical cancer disparities. <\/p>\n

Assessment methods and deductions varied
\nbetween studies. For example, according to Race, Ethnicity, and Income
\nFactors Impacting Human Papillomavirus Vaccination rates,<\/em> current trends in the United States indicate
\nHPV rates stagnated between 2011 and 2012 amongst adolescent women. They
\nbelieve that provider recommendation is a key factor in HPV vaccination, and
\nminorities are less likely to report receiving recommendations for HPV
\nvaccination.<\/p>\n

Fittingly, Challenges and Opportunities to
\nImprove Cervical Cancer Screening Rates in US Health Centers through
\nPatient-Centered Medical Home Transformation <\/em>states that HPV vaccination
\nimprovement and cervical cancer screening processes amongst young minority
\nwomen can be divided into four sections based upon health center and patient
\ncharacteristics, patient-level, provider-level and system-level barriers,
\npatient-targeted solutions, provider-targeted solutions and system-level
\nchanges, and lastly, the patterns across health center characteristics. <\/p>\n

Addressing the Barriers to Cervical Cancer Prevention Among Hispanic
\nWomen<\/em>
\nidentifies the reasons why Hispanic women fare an
\nincreased risk to HPV related cervical cancer, which is multifactorial. This
\nincludes resource limitations within the healthcare system, as well as
\nlanguage, cultural, and knowledge difficulties.<\/p>\n

Similarly, Individual, Provider, and System Risk
\nFactors for Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Among Underserved Black,
\nLatina, and Arab Women<\/em>, distinguishes between race, culture and pap test
\nbetween three different minority women. Black women have more health literacy
\nrisks associated with reduced odds of a Papanicolaou (Pap) test. For Latina
\nwomen, the lack of doctor recommendations were significantly associated with
\ndecreased odds a Pap test. And, for Arab women, the lack of doctor
\nrecommendations was considerably associated with the decreased odds of a Pap
\ntest. <\/p>\n

In Barriers to cervical cancer screening among ethnic minority women: a
\nqualitative study<\/em>, the analysis reveals that fifteen women had delayed
\nscreening and\/or had never been screened for cervical cancer. These ethnic
\nminority women felt that there was a lack of awareness about cervical cancer in
\ntheir community, and some did not recognize or understand the terms cervical
\nscreening or pap smear test. However, negative healthcare experiences were
\nidentified by all women, and are the biggest barrier to preventative and
\nscreening efforts.<\/p>\n

Correspondingly, Differences in cervical cancer screening
\nknowledge, practices, and beliefs: An examination of survey responses<\/em>, interviews
\nrespondents aged 21 to 35 and of minority ethnicities. Within the interview
\nparticipants were asked \u201cWhat is the purpose of a Pap smear or Pap test?\u201d 49%
\nstated that a Pap test checks for cancer, although not all participants knew it
\ntested specifically for cervical cancer. 20% stated that it checked for
\nabnormal or precancerous cells. 41% knew that a Pap test checked the cervix.
\n29% were vague in their answers, which suggest that they did not fully
\nunderstand the purpose. 9% indicated that a Pap test checked for STIs. Some
\nparticipants thought a Pap test evaluated other body parts including the
\novaries, uterus, breasts, and used nonspecific terms like \u201cdown there.\u201d About
\n26% answered correctly, while 36% did in fact answer incorrectly. The correct
\nand the incorrect answers were then analyzed by race. Those who answered
\nincorrectly had more than four times the odds of being non-Hispanic black
\nwomen. <\/p>\n

Cervical
\nCancer Prevention: New Tools and Old Barriers<\/em>, shares many ethnic minority
\n(African-American and Hispanic) women\u2019s cervical cancer prevention experiences
\nin the face of high cervical cancer burden. The outcome of the study is to
\nenlighten future research and outreach efforts in order to positively reduce
\nthe burden of cervical cancer in underserved populations.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Disparities
\nin HPV and Cervical Cancer Screening Between Highly Educated White and Minority
\nYoung Women<\/em>, acknowledged that education effects health awareness, which in
\nturn makes cervical cancer screening unequal across the racial\/ethnic lines of
\nyoung women. The study results indicate that women of color have greater time
\nlapses since their last cervical cancer screening. However, research also
\naccentuates that race and awareness are not fully capable of explaining the
\nvariation of preventative screening practices among highly educated women. <\/p>\n

Lastly, The Nurse\u2019s Role in the Prevention of
\nCervical Cancer Among Underserved and Minority Populations,<\/em> identified
\ndisparities in the incidence of cervical cancer and barriers that may be
\ncontributed to underserved populations. The study calls for nurses to play many
\nroles in the prevention of cervical cancer, with a prominent one being a
\npatient educator. There is a need to educate nurses about the risks and impact
\nof HPV and cervical cancer, which includes education and increasing awareness. \u00a0<\/p>\n

Discussion<\/h2>\n

Implications for More Research<\/h3>\n

The studies analyzed
\nfound that cervical cancer screening practices between vaccinated and
\nunvaccinated participants is an area for future research using stronger study
\ndesigns in order to make stronger, causal arguments about the relationship of
\nHPV vaccination to cervical cancer screening. Overall findings from the studies
\ncould enlighten future interventions with stronger study designs aimed at
\ntailoring messages for patients, standardizing education for providers, or
\nboth. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Implications for Practice <\/h3>\n

The prevention of health
\ndisparities and disease is, in part, contingent upon preventative medical
\npractices and techniques. Extra efforts need to be made to educate all young
\nwomen, and particularly young women of color, about HPV and cervical cancer.
\nThis may be accomplished by stressing the efficacy of screening and addressing
\nconcerns and misunderstandings of HPV vaccination and cervical cancer
\nscreening. <\/p>\n

Limitations<\/h3>\n

The women in
\nthe sample studies may not be illustrative of the general population. There is
\na possibility of selection bias, whether it is with greater participation of
\npro-health attitudes or that of illiterate and disproportionate health
\nknowledge. The measures for receipt and understanding of HPV vaccination and
\nPap screening of the studies are self-reported, and thus are subject to recall
\nbias and reporting errors.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n

Health professionals
\nhave the competence and capacity to prevent, detect, and treat HPV and cervical
\ncancer. Thus, chasm between the quality and quantity of medical care being delivered
\nshould no longer be a healthcare question. A paradigm shift is needed; with a
\nmulti-faceted approach including improved health care access,
\npopulation-targeted outreach, language-appropriate services, and culturally
\ncompetent care.<\/strong><\/p>\n

We call health professionals to work together to identify possible
\nsolutions and opportunities, as well as socio-economic patterns in healthcare
\nbarriers, which includes demographic, cultural, and health belief and behavior
\nfactors. Furthermore, intervention models need to reflect multifactorial
\ndeterminants of screening utilization. <\/p>\n

References<\/h2>\n

Alligood-Percoco, N. and J. P. Kesterson
\n(2016). \u201cAddressing the Barriers to Cervical Cancer Prevention Among
\nHispanic Women.\u201d J Racial Ethn Health Disparities 3<\/strong>(3):
\n489-495.<\/p>\n

Bennefield, Z. C. (2015). \u201cDisparities in
\nHPV and Cervical Cancer Screening Between Highly Educated White and Minority
\nYoung Women.\u201d American Journal of Health Education 46<\/strong>(2):
\n90-98.<\/p>\n

Jeudin, P., E. Liveright, M. G. Del Carmen and
\nR. B. Perkins (2014). \u201cRace, ethnicity, and income factors impacting human
\npapillomavirus vaccination rates.\u201d Clin Ther 36<\/strong>(1): 24-37.<\/p>\n

Kasting, M. L., S. Wilson, T. W. Zollinger, B.
\nE. Dixon, N. W. Stupiansky and G. D. Zimet (2017). \u201cDifferences in
\ncervical cancer screening knowledge, practices, and beliefs: An examination of
\nsurvey responses.\u201d Prev Med Rep 5<\/strong>: 169-174.<\/p>\n

Marlow, L. A., J. Waller and J. Wardle (2015).
\n\u201cBarriers to cervical cancer screening among ethnic minority women: a
\nqualitative study.\u201d J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 41<\/strong>(4):
\n248-254.<\/p>\n

Moshkovich, O., L. Lebrun-Harris, L. Makaroff,
\nP. Chidambaran, M. Chung, A. Sripipatana and S. C. Lin (2015). \u201cChallenges
\nand Opportunities to Improve Cervical Cancer Screening Rates in US Health
\nCenters through Patient-Centered Medical Home Transformation.\u201d Adv Prev
\nMed 2015<\/strong>: 182073.<\/p>\n

Rogers, N. M. and A. G. Cantu (2009). \u201cThe
\nnurse\u2019s role in the prevention of cervical cancer among underserved and
\nminority populations.\u201d J Community Health 34<\/strong>(2): 135-143.<\/p>\n

Roman, L., C. Meghea, S. Ford, L. Penner, H.
\nHamade, T. Estes and K. P. Williams (2014). \u201cIndividual, provider, and
\nsystem risk factors for breast and cervical cancer screening among underserved
\nBlack, Latina, and Arab women.\u201d J Womens Health (Larchmt) 23<\/strong>(1):
\n57-64.<\/p>\n

Scarinci, I. C., F. A. Garcia, E. Kobetz, E. E.
\nPartridge, H. M. Brandt, M. C. Bell, M. Dignan, G. X. Ma, J. L. Daye and P. E.
\nCastle (2010). \u201cCervical cancer prevention: new tools and old
\nbarriers.\u201d Cancer 116<\/strong>(11): 2531-2542<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What are the Barriers of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination and Cervical Cancer Screening amongst Minority Women age 12-26? Abstract Background: Minority women systematically experience socio-economic disadvantages, which put […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pagelayer_contact_templates":[],"_pagelayer_content":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2805],"tags":[2819,2808,2807,2820],"class_list":["post-7517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-us","tag-nursing-discussion-post-example-essay","tag-i-need-help-writing-a-nursing-essay","tag-help-with-nursing-discussion-board","tag-sample-social-care-research-papers"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7517","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7517"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7517\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}