Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Paskett, E. D.
Right arrow Articles by Case, L. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Paskett, E. D.
Right arrow Articles by Case, L. D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Education Research, Vol. 14, No. 5, 667-674, October 1999
© 1999 Oxford University Press

Receptivity of a worksite breast cancer screening education program

Electra D. Paskett, Karen B. Masten1, Kim C. Phillips and L. Douglas Case

Department of Public Health Sciences and
1 Comprehensive Cancer Center of Wake Forest University, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA

A breast cancer screening education program was offered to 97 major worksites in Forsyth County, North Carolina. Worksites could design a program by choosing components that consisted of (1) brochures, (2) breast cancer education classes taught by program staff or (3) sending company nurses to be trained by program staff to then teach employees at the worksite. A total of 63 out of the original 97 companies (65%) accepted and offered a program to their employees. Worksites that chose to sponsor a program were more likely to have already sponsored breast cancer education programs at their worksites (P = 0.027) or to have a medical department (P = 0.006). The type of component selected was significantly associated with a history of sponsoring other health education programs (P < 0.001). Fourteen worksites chose the more intensive component, the training of a company nurse. More than half of the worksites that had never sponsored and had no plans to sponsor worksite breast education programs were receptive to our program (43 of 73, 59%). The majority of these sites (67%) chose the brochure. These results indicate that worksites are receptive to offering breast cancer educational programs if varying types of components can be selected.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
K. P. Williams, P. B. Mullan, and D. Todem
Moving from theory to practice: implementing the Kin KeeperSM Cancer Prevention Model
Health Educ. Res., April 1, 2009; 24(2): 343 - 356.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.