Open Access

Heterogeneity within the Asian American community

  • Georgia Robins Sadler1, 2Email author,
  • Lisa Ryujin1,
  • Tammy Nguyen1,
  • Gia Oh1,
  • Grace Paik1 and
  • Brenda Kustin1
International Journal for Equity in Health20032:12

DOI: 10.1186/1475-9276-2-12

Received: 07 December 2002

Accepted: 29 December 2003

Published: 29 December 2003

Abstract

Background

Educational interventions are grounded on scientific data and assumptions about the community to be served. While the Pan Asian community is composed of multiple, ethnic subgroups, it is often treated as a single group for which one health promotion program will be applicable for all of its cultural subgroups. Compounding this stereotypical view of the Pan Asian community, there is sparse data about the cultural subgroups' similarities and dissimilarities. The Asian Grocery Store based cancer education program evaluation data provided an opportunity to compare data collected under identical circumstances from members of six Asian American cultural groups.

Methods

A convenience sample of 1,202 Asian American women evaluated the cultural alignment of a cancer education program, completing baseline and follow-up surveys that included questions about their breast cancer knowledge, attitudes, and screening behaviors. Participants took part in a brief education program that facilitated adherence to recommended screening guidelines.

Results

Unique recruitment methods were needed to attract participants from each ethnic group. Impressions gained from the aggregate data revealed different insights than the disaggregate data. Statistically significant variations existed among the subgroups' breast cancer knowledge, attitudes, and screening behaviors that could contribute to health disparities among the subgroups and within the aggregate Pan Asian community.

Conclusion

Health promotion efforts of providers, educators, and policy makers can be enhanced if cultural differences are identified and taken into account when developing strategies to reduce health disparities and promote health equity.

Keywords

Asian American Breast Cancer Cancer Education Early Detection Mammography

Background

The cultural groups that make up the Pacific Islander and Asian American communities are often grouped together and considered as a single homogeneous entity. In reality, these communities are diverse in language, culture, and history. Such differences can influence access to health information, health maintenance opportunities, health care, and health outcomes. Public health educators are urged to create health promotion programs that recognize and take these differences into account. However, few examples can be found in the scientific literature with side-by-side comparisons of how knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors can vary among cultural subgroups who are to become the focus of behavioral interventions. This manuscript is offered to raise awareness of the similarities and differences that can exist within seemingly similar cultural subgroups in the same community and the importance of incorporating that knowledge into the educational program to customize the intervention appropriately.

As part of the evaluation of the Asian Grocery Store-Based Cancer Education Program, Asian American women were surveyed regarding their breast cancer knowledge, attitudes, and screening behaviors before and after participating in the brief educational intervention [1]. This large and ethnically diverse sample created the opportunity to make a comparison among the participating cultural subgroups [28]. The authors hypothesized that there would be no statistically significant differences in breast cancer knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors found among the cultural subgroups.

This paper compares and contrasts data collected from the 1,202 women from San Diego County who took part in the evaluation of the Asian grocery store-based program. While some of the data presented in this manuscript have previously been reported, this paper uses that and other data to demonstrate differences among cultural subgroups and how awareness of such differences can help health educators, promoters, and policy makers tailor health promotion programs for specific population subgroups.

Methods

The Asian Grocery Store-Based Cancer Education Program was established to reach Asian and Pacific Islander women of diverse cultures, languages, ages, and levels of acculturation, literacy and socioeconomic status [1]. Incorporating the educational program into women's routine shopping activities was anticipated to help overcome commonly reported barriers to health education, screening, and care, such as problems with transportation and lack of time [911].

Bilingual, bicultural community health educators helped to overcome the barriers associated with language and culture. The educators offered breast cancer information in the safe, culturally and gender aligned environment offered by the Asian grocery store. Verbal and written education materials were provided in multiple languages and dialects to help explain the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute's breast cancer screening guidelines. The educators also promoted access to California's Breast Cancer Early Detection Program's free breast cancer screening and treatment services for low-income women. They used multiple visual teaching aids, including a string of beads simulating the sizes of breast cancer lumps that can be found by various detection methods and synthetic breast models with imbedded breast abnormalities.

Of the several thousand women who took part in the brief cancer education program, 1,202 agreed to help evaluate the program. The participants in this convenience sample signed Human Research Protections Program-approved consent documents, completed baseline surveys, and took part in the cancer education program. Two weeks post baseline, telephone calls were initiated to conduct a follow-up survey. For women who could not be reached after 10 telephone attempts, the follow-up survey was mailed with a hand-written cover letter of explanation and a stamped self-addressed envelope. Letters and surveys were provided in the language the participant preferred to use at baseline. The baseline survey collected women's socio-demographic characteristics including age, ethnicity, and primary language, plus their baseline breast cancer knowledge, attitudes, and screening behaviors. For the follow-up telephone survey, women reported their screening behaviors, barriers to screening, and suggestions to improve screening access. Since screening guidelines begin at age 20, only the data for the women 20 years and older (1,190) are reported here. The majority of the women in this age group (1,131) belonged to one of six cultural groups. This paper compares the data for those six groups.

Results

Effectiveness of the Asian Grocery Stores to Attract a Diverse Sample of Pacific Asians

An excellent example of the importance of recognizing that Asian and Pacific Islander sub-communities have unique characteristics emerged during the midpoint evaluation of the sample's socio-demographic data. A comparison of the proportion of each group represented in the sample disclosed an under-representation of Japanese, Asian Indian, Korean, Cambodian, Laotian, Hmong, and all Pacific Islander communities. Expanding the number of participating Asian grocery stores resolved the under representation of only the Japanese, Asian Indian, and Korean communities. Further study is required to understand if the remaining groups were present, but reluctant to participate in the research study, or if they actually conducted their shopping chores in other, as yet, unidentified Asian or mainstream grocery stores.

Variation in Baseline Screening Adherence Rates

Promoting adherence to early breast cancer detection guidelines is a crucial step toward reducing breast cancer mortality rates. Within the aggregate screening data, the clinical breast exam screening (CBE) rate among women 40 and older was 52% while the annual mammography rate among women 50 and older was 47% [2]. Those rates were far below the 70% screening target rate set in the National Cancer Institute's and the American Cancer Society's Year 2000 Goals, suggesting a cohort at significant risk of late stage breast cancer detection [12]. However, statistically significant differences in screening rates were seen in several categories (Tables 1). For women in the 40 and older age group, Japanese American, the highest reported rate of annual mammography (72%), while Korean American women had the lowest rate (22%), with other groups falling in between. For women 50 years and older, 81% of Asian Indian women reported having had a mammogram in the past 12 months, compared to only 29% of the Korean American subgroup.
Table 1

Adherence to Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines by Age and Ethnicity at Baseline

Ethnic Group

BSE

N = 1087*

over age 20 (includes unspecified ages)

Annual Clinical Breast Exam

N = 490*

age 40 and over

Annual Mammography

N = 490*

age 40 and over

Annual Mammography N = 219*

age 50 and over

Asian Indian N = 125

37%

55%

64%

81%

Chinese

N = 302

26%

53%

34%

35%

Filipino

N = 248

46%

48%

53%

58%

Japanese

N = 47

38%

59%

72%

74%

Korean

N = 123

31%

49%

22%

29%

Vietnamese

N = 275

26%

54%

39%

33%

Full Sample

N = 1190

33%

52%

44%

47%

X2

.0005

N/S

.0005

.0005

* The numbers represent only women who provided valid data for these questions.

Knowing where similarities exist in a field of contrasting data is equally important in the creation of health promotion strategies. In addition to the lower-than-optimal rates of annual CBE for all subgroups, the subgroups all reported higher CBE adherence rates than breast self-examination (BSE) rates, and all but Korean women had equal or higher mammography rates than BSE rates (Table 1). While a higher adherence to the guidelines for annual mammogram is preferred since it has been shown effectively to reduce mortality rates, the trio of screening options is recommended as a means of finding those breast cancers that will predictably be missed in a proportion of mammograms and clinical breast exams.

There is a considerable difference in health outcomes between women who may not be adhering to the exact recommended guidelines for annual screening and those who have never been screened. Table 2 shows the statistically significant variations by ethnic group and age of women who report never having had a mammogram. This data underscores the legitimate need for screening promotion programs that are focused on the cultural groups with the greatest proportion of never screened women.
Table 2

Women Who Reported Never Having Had a Mammogram by Age and Ethnicity

Ethnic Group

Women age 40–49 N = 271

Women age 50 and over N = 219

Asian Indian

46%

19%

Chinese

66%

66%

Filipino

52%

42%

Japanese

30%

26%

Korean

85%

71%

Vietnamese

56%

67%

Full sample

58%

53%

X2

.007

.0005

The influence of age on breast cancer knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors was evaluated to determine if it interacted differently among the various ethnic groups. Age proved to be a factor only in predicting the overall BSE screening rates, with statistically significant differences among younger women in the subgroups (Table 3). While the benefits of BSE in prolonging life continue to be debated [1317] for women aged 20–39, BSE is the primary method for the early detection of breast cancer [13]. For older groups, it is women's best way of detecting breast cancer between CBE and mammography screenings and those that were missed by these two screening methods. Hence it continues to be recommended by the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute. BSE screening adherence was lowest (31%) in the youngest age group, ranging from 46% among Filipinas to 13% among Japanese American women, and highest among the 50 and over age group (39%).
Table 3

BSE Screening Adherence Rates by Age and Ethnicity

Ethnic Group

N = 449* Age 20 to 39

N = 271 *Age 40 to 49

N = 219* Age 50 and over

Asian Indian N = 125

31%

43%

50%

Chinese N = 302

27%

25%

33%

Filipino N = 248

46%

48%

50%

Japanese N = 47

13%

60%

47%

Korean N = 123

32%

22%

29%

Vietnamese N = 275

20%

33%

30%

Full Sample N = 1190

31%

37%

39%

X2

.008

.02

N/S

* The numbers represent only women who provided valid data for these questions.

Variation in English as a Native Language

Language is a barrier that is widely recognized as a contributor to health disparities because it limits access to health promotion information and health care. Most participants (93.1%) reported a primary language other than English. Among the subgroups, English as a native language varied significantly, with Japanese American women reporting the highest frequency of English as a native language (15%) and Vietnamese women, the lowest (1%) (Table 4). Literacy levels for English were not evaluated since the program was being offered in the women's native language as a way of emphasizing the information's relevance to the community of Pan Asian women.
Table 4

Differences in Retention, Knowledge Preferences, Perceptions, and Primary Language by Cultural Sub-groups.

Questions

Asian Indian1

Chinese1

Filipino1

Japanese1

Korean1

Vietnamese1

Chi-square significance

Retained in study through follow up

56%

67%

69%

62%

76%

65%

.02

Breast cancer knowledge reported sufficient

44%

37%

40%

43%

17%

45%

.0005

Willing to share breast cancer knowledge with family and friends

87%

95%

97%

87%

84%

91%

.001

Perceived receptivity of family and friends to breast cancer knowledge

65%

73%

75%

76%

86%

68%

.0005

Prefer to get knowledge from classroom setting

24%

18%

21%

30%

36%

22%

.002

Prefer to get new health knowledge by mail

81%

74%

68%

66%

76%

52%

.0005

Prefer to get new health knowledge by telephone

24%

19%

31%

23%

34%

38%

.0005

Receive free information in the future to keep family healthy

83%

95%

92%

72%

89%

95%

.0005

Willing to receive information of personal nature

81%

91%

91%

72%

84%

91%

.002

English as a Native Language

7%

6%

7%

15%

2%

1%

.001

1 The numbers represent only women who provided valid data for these questions.

Variation in Study Retention Rates

With so many women reporting English as a second language, the overall study retention rate (67%) was likely to have been facilitated by having same language data collectors conduct the follow-up telephone surveys as the baseline surveys. Significant differences in retention rates were noted (p < .02), with Korean women having the highest rate of follow-up survey participation (76%) and Asian Indian women, the lowest (56%) (Table 4).

Variation in Adequacy of Knowledge

Overall, while 38% of the women felt that they had sufficient information about breast cancer, there were significant differences in the women's perceived adequacy of their knowledge by ethnic subgroup (Table 4). Vietnamese women (45%) were the most likely to report that they had sufficient knowledge and Korean women least likely (17%), thereby demonstrating the absence of a correlation between women's perceptions of the adequacy of their knowledge and their reported screening behaviors.

Variation in Women's Sharing of Information

Lending support to the value of "word-of-mouth" campaigns," such as the American Cancer Society's "Tell-a-Friend" program, 92% of all women reported that they were willing to share their knowledge with their family and friends. However, there was significant variation in women's willingness to share their knowledge among the subgroups, ranging from 84% for Korean women to 97% for Filipinas (Table 4). Women's perception of their family and friends' willingness to receive information also showed significant variation, ranging from 65% for Asian Indian women to 86% for Korean women (Table 4).

Variation in Preferences for Receiving Health Information

Several options were offered for women to receive future health information: by mail, telephone, or in a classroom setting. Interest in attending a class to receive health information was low in all groups (23%), but showed significant variation among the subgroups, with Korean women showing the most interest (36%) and Chinese women showing the least interest (18%) (Table 3). Interest in receiving information by mail was greater in general (68%) but varied significantly among the subgroups, with a large proportion of Asian Indian women interested (81%) in this method versus 52% of Vietnamese women. While women were less interested in receiving information by phone than by mail, interest levels varied significantly. Vietnamese women were most interested in receiving information by phone (38%) in contrast to Chinese women who were least likely (19%). Although most women reported a willingness to receive free information that could help keep their families healthy, there were significant differences among the subgroups (Table 4). Vietnamese (95%) and Chinese women (95%) were most receptive; Japanese women, least receptive (72%). Equally encouraging, most women were willing to receive health information of a personal nature, but again, there were significant differences among the groups. (Table 4)

Variation in Adherence to Screening Guidelines at Follow-up

BSE was anticipated to be the easiest screening measure in which to identify post-intervention changes. While an overall shift toward BSE adherence did occur at follow up, statistically significant differences were seen among the groups (Table 5). Adherence to BSE screening guidelines among the previously non-adherent women ranged between no change for the Japanese American women to 38% among the Vietnamese women.
Table 5

Adherence to Screening Guidelines at Follow-Up among Women Who Were Non-Adherent by Age and Ethnicity.

Ethnic Group

BSE in past month among women age over 20

N = 448*

Women age 40 and over who were screened or set up screening appointment

N = 165*

Women age 50 and over who were screened or set up screening appointment

N = 83*

Asian Indian

N = 125

11%

20%

0%

Chinese

N = 302

25%

36%

60%

Filipino

N = 248

35%

33%

45%

Japanese

N = 47

0%

0%

0%

Korean

N = 123

13%

5%

0%

Vietnamese

N = 275

38%

41%

52%

X2

.0005

.02

.009

* The numbers represent only women who provided valid data for these questions.

Women were also asked if they set up an appointment for breast cancer screening or actually been screened during the interval since baseline. While follow up telephone calls were initiated at two weeks post intervention, reaching the women and actually completing the follow up survey usually took several additional weeks, leaving ample time for women to schedule or undergo screening if the intervention had prompted them to engage in that activity. Among women aged 40 and older and 50 and older, there was a positive shift toward screening uptake, but one that varied significantly among the ethnic groups (p < .02 and .009, respectively) (Table 5). Sixty percent of Chinese and 52% of Vietnamese American aged 50 and older who were non-adherent at baseline, reported that they had, or had scheduled, a mammogram in the interval. By contrast, the groups of Asian Indian and Japanese American women over 50 showed no change in adherence to screening guidelines at follow up. Given that the women in these two groups had reported the highest baseline mammography screening rate (81% and 74%, respectively), the non-adherent women in these two ethnic groups may represent a subgroup of women who are resistant to adopting the Western screening methods even though the screening methods are widely used within their own cultural groups [18].

Discussion

While Asian and Pacific Islander women have one of the lowest rates of breast cancer, it has been shown that the longer Asian women live in the United States, the greater their risk of developing breast cancer. This pattern of increasing risk makes the promotion of early detection options of great importance [1927]. Previous reports claimed that Asian and Pacific Islander women have the lowest breast cancer screening rates [2830]. In spite of the recent controversy regarding the efficacy of breast cancer screening guidelines in reducing breast cancer mortality rates, the consensus of opinion is that breast cancer screening rates predict stage of detection, and that in turn, influences the odds of survival. Thus promotion of adherence to screening guidelines remains an important cancer control strategy [3133].

The participants in this study do not constitute a representative sample for each of the population subgroups being studied and thereby reduces the confidence that can be placed on any generalizations that are made from these data. However, with communities where the denominator and location of the constituent group is unknown, it is virtually impossible to recruit a sample that will be representative of the national cultural community. Thus while generalizations from this data must be drawn with caution, the data can still be used to illustrate the importance of gaining a better understanding of the make up of the specific community to be served. This data collection is an essential component of planning for program development and policy making. Indeed it is the experiences of the women who came forward to be served by this educational program that must be taken into account when planning future interventions, not the experiences of women at large. It is the personal experiences of the participants that can be used to help to foreshadow and avert future health disparities among sub-cultural groups within a specific community. Thus the data collected in this study demonstrate the very significant differences that can exist among women who share many cultural attributes.

This study's hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant differences in attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors among the cultural subgroups taking part in the cancer education program was proven false. This suggests that breast cancer screening promotion efforts could have greater efficacy in reducing health disparities if they were focused on the specific attributes of the Asian subgroup to be served. Insight into baseline behaviors, knowledge, and attitudes enables health care providers, public health educators, and health policy makers to create programs that are format and content specific to the communities where health disparities are greatest. Awareness of baseline differences also help educators to focus their attention to the possible underlying causes of these observed disparities in knowledge, practices and attitudes and to explore whether these differences translate into worse breast cancer outcomes. In San Diego County, for example, a randomized trial is subsequently evaluating a new, more intensive breast cancer screening promotion program that is focused specifically on the four Asian communities shown to be the least adherent to the recommended breast cancer screening guidelines. In another subsequent study, health activists from San Diego's Pacific Islander Cancer Control Network suggested the creation of the telephone-based breast cancer screening promotion program that is currently underway among the region's Chamorro women after this study and subsequent focus groups confirmed that Chamorros only occasionally shop at Asian grocery stores.

Once the baseline, needs assessment data is available for a diverse cohort, focus groups can help to identify the optimal message content and program positioning within each Asian subgroup [34]. Subtle differences can increase the effectiveness of a particular strategy. For example, focus interviews suggested that among Southern California's Japanese and Asian Indian women, screening campaigns might be more effective if they positioned screening as the cultural norm to encourage women in those groups to get screened and help encourage others to do so. In contrast, intervention strategies developed from focus interviews for groups with low frequency screening rates might emphasize the higher screening rates of other Asian subgroups as a community-wide motivator. Focus groups and focus interviews will be essential to getting the call-to-action message precisely honed for each health promotion outcome goal.

Screening recommendations from health professionals have been demonstrated to facilitate screening uptake [3545]. The two groups with the highest screening rates in this study were drawn from cultural groups with greater overall socioeconomic capacity and hence include women who were more likely to have greater access to health care. Clinic-based education programs, one-on-one screening encouragement, and help scheduling screening appointments, particularly where language is a barrier, can all facilitate screening. Every time health care providers talk with patients who are following positive health promoting behaviors, they have the opportunity to launch a mini "Tell a Friend" campaign by encouraging their patients to encourage others to follow their example. Better than anyone else, their patients will understand the nuances of how to reach out to the individual members within their social group.

While health care providers can play a key role in increasing women's adherence to screening guidelines, the literature suggests that Asian American women may not visit their health care providers as often as women from other ethnic groups [23, 46]. Further, culture and lack of English language proficiency pose barriers to forms of Western health care [20, 4750]. For those women, other intervention strategies, such as the Asian Grocery Store-Based Cancer Education Program, will continue to be important since they can be honed to deliver culturally and linguistically competent messages to each specific audience at relatively low cost.

The women's high willingness to share breast cancer knowledge with family and friends and their overall perceived need for more breast cancer information suggest that the facilitation of community discussion could be an effective tool in a cancer control strategy. The more discussion about breast cancer screening, the more likely that the associated health promoting behaviors will become a social norm, thereby positively impacting not only women's actions, but also men's understanding of why these screening actions warrant their full endorsement [51]. Recruiting formal and informal community health educators and advocates who are: 1) knowledgeable about community members, norms, and cultural values; 2) early adopters of health promoting behaviors themselves; and 3) willing to initiate well informed discussions about health promoting behaviors in routine conversations, are also likely to help reduce health disparities [52].

The use of multiple intervention strategies simultaneously can increase the community's discussion of cancer screening and thereby elevate its visibility more rapidly. The Asian Grocery Store-Based Cancer Education Program and other highly visible outreach programs, media and "word-of-mouth" campaigns, and recommendations from health care providers can work synergistically to encourage breast cancer screening via frequent, repeat cueing. The shibboleth of marketing is that it requires between seven and 21 messages to be delivered in relatively close succession and in multiple modalities before the health promotion message will achieve top-of-mind awareness. Repeat cueing is critical. Finally, as was discovered in this study, periodic evaluations of the sociodemographic characteristics of the population being served are warranted to assure that the intended socio-cultural audience is, in fact, being reached and that the messages continue to be appropriately honed for each cultural subgroup.

Conclusion

The Pan Asian community is often mistakenly viewed as a homogeneous group. This study's comparison of breast cancer knowledge, attitudes, and screening behaviors among the diverse sub-populations in one geographic region underscores the importance of recognizing both the similarities and differences that can exist within aggregated cultural groups. By recognizing these similarities and differences, health care providers, educators, and policy makers will be better able to understand the community they serve and identify the most efficient strategies toward achieving a reduction in health disparities.

Authors Contributions

Georgia Robins Sadler, Ph.D. is the principal investigator, designed the study methodology, directed the data collection and data analysis, and led the manuscript preparation

Lisa Ryujin – Assisted with the literature search, the data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation

Tammy Nguyen – Assisted with the literature search, the data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation

Gia Oh – Assisted with the literature search, the data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation

Grace Paik – Assisted with the literature search, the data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation

Brenda Kustin – Assisted with the data analysis and manuscript preparation

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by a grant from the San Diego and Imperial County Regional Partnership of the California Breast Cancer Early Detection Program, a Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation Special Populations Grant, a National Cancer Institute Grant 5R25-CA65745, and a National Cancer Institute Pacific Islander Cancer Control Network Grant U01CA86073. Its contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official beliefs of the funding agencies.

The authors also wish to thank the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the San Diego Union of Pacific Asian Communities for their guidance and generous contribution of printed educational materials and videotapes. The following companies are also recognized for their generous contribution of the sunscreen product samples distributed during the cancer education program: Almay; Arizona Sun; Banana Boat; Blistex; Bristol Myers Squibb; Bullfrog; Clinique; Coppertone; Doak; Mary Kay; Merle Norman; Physician's Formula; and Schering Plough.

Finally, the authors wish to thank the hundreds of UCSD undergraduate students who participated in the realization of this project and the following owners and managers of the Asian grocery stores who shared the common vision of enhancing their community's health: Diwali Festival, First Market, Hing Long Market, India Sweets and Spices, Manila Seafood Market, Neema's Sari Palace, Nijaya Market, Philippine-American Expo, San Diego Supermarket, Seafood City, National City, Seafood City, Chula Vista, Vien Dong, San Diego, Vien Dong III, San Diego, Vien Dong IV, San Diego, Zion Oriental Market, San Diego, 99 Ranch Market, San Diego, 66 Ranch Market, San Diego, 79 Supermarket, El Cajon, 79 Supermarket, Mira Mesa, 79 Super Market, San Diego, Yaohan Mitsuwa.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Moores University of California San Diego Cancer Center
(2)
Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego School of Medicine

References

  1. Sadler GR, Nguyen F, Doan Q, Au H, Thomas AG: Strategies for reaching Asian Americans with health information. Am J Prev Med. 1998, 14: 224-228. 10.1016/S0749-3797(97)00067-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Sadler GR, Thomas AG, Yen JY, Dhanjal SK, Ko CM, Tran CH, Wang K: Asian grocery store-based cancer education program. Journal of Cancer Education. 2000, 15: 173-177. 10.1002/1098-1101(2000)15:3<173::AID-JCA3>3.0.CO;2-4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Sadler GR, Wang K, Wang M, Ko CM: Chinese women: behaviors and attitudes toward breast cancer education and screening. Womens Health Issues. 2000, 10: 20-26. 10.1016/S1049-3867(99)00046-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Sadler GR, Dhanjal SK, Bhatia NB, Shah RB, Ko CM, Anghel M, Harshburger RJ: Asian Indian women: knowledge, attitudes and behaviors towards breast cancer early detection. Journal of Public Health Nursing. 2001, 18: 357-363. 10.1046/j.1525-1446.2001.00357.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Sadler GR, Dong H, Ko CM, Nguyen H, Luu TT: Vietnamese American women: behaviors and attitudes toward breast cancer education and screening. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2001, 15: 211-214.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Sadler GR, Ryujin L, Ko CM, Nguyen E: Korean Women: breast cancer knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Biomed Central Public Health. 2001, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/1/7.Google Scholar
  7. Sadler GR, Takahashi M, Ko CM, Nguyen T: Japanese women: behaviors and attitudes toward breast cancer education and screening. Health Care for Women International. 2003, 24: 18-26. 10.1080/07399330304015.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Ko CM, Sadler GR, Ryujin L, Dong A: Filipino American women: breast cancer knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. Biomed Central Public Health. 2003, 3: 27-10.1186/1471-2458-3-27.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Kagawa-Singer M: Cancer and Asian American cultures. Asian American and Pacific Islander Journal of Health. 1998, 6: 383-399.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kelly A, Chacori MD, Wollen P, Trapp M, Weaver A, Barrier P, Franz W, Kottke T: A program to increase breast and cervical screening for Cambodian women in a Midwestern community. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 1996, 71: 437-444.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Valdini A, Cargill L: Access and barriers to mammography in New England community health centers. The Journal of Family Practice. 1997, 45: 243-249.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. National Institute of Health: Healthy People 2010. 2000, National Institute of Health, 2000: [http://www.healthypeople.gov/About/goals.htm]Google Scholar
  13. Harris R, Kinsinger LS: Routinely teaching breast self-examination is dead. What does this mean?. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2002, 94:Google Scholar
  14. Champion V: The role of breast self-examination in breast cancer screening. Cancer. 1992, 69: 1985-1991.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Maurer F: A peer education model for teaching breast self-examination to undergraduate college women. Cancer Nursing. 1997, 20: 49-61. 10.1097/00002820-199702000-00007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gasalberti D: Early detection of breast cancer by self-examination: the influence of perceived barriers and health conception. Oncology Nursing Forum. 2002, 29: 1341-1347.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Thomas DB, Gao DL, Self SG, Allison CJ, Tao Y, Mahloch J, Ray R, Qin Q, Presley R, Porter P: Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: methodology and preliminary results. Journal of National Cancer Institute. 1997, 89: 355-365. 10.1093/jnci/89.5.355.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Rogers EM, Shoemaker FF: Communication of innovations; a cross-cultural approach. 1962, New York, New York, Free Press, 476-2d ed.Google Scholar
  19. Maxwell AE, Bastani R, Warda US: Misconceptions and mammography use among Filipino- and Korean-American women. Ethn Dis. 1998, 8: 377-384.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Wismer BA, Moskowitz JM, Chen AM, Kang SH, E. NovotnyT., Min K, Lew R, Tager IB: Mammography and clinical breast examination among Korean American women in two California counties. Preventive Medicine. 1998, 27: 144-151. 10.1006/pmed.1997.0259.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Chen MS Jr., Hawks BL: A debunking of the myth of healthy Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. American Journal of Health Promotion. 1995, 9: 261-268.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Buell P: Changing incidence of breast cancer in Japanese-American women. Journal of National Cancer Institute. 1973, 51: 1479-1483.Google Scholar
  23. Fetters MD: The family in medical decision making: Japanese perspectives. Journal of Clinical Ethics. 1998, 9: 132-146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Nakamura K: Secondary prevention of breast cancer in female Japanese citizens residing in the USA. Journal of Cultural Diversity. 2001, 8: 41-44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lin SS, Clarke CA, Prehn AW, Glaser SL, West DW, O'Malley CD: Survival difference among Asian subpopulations in the United States after prostate, colorectal, breast, and cervical carcinomas. Cancer. 2002, 94: 1175-1181. 10.1002/cncr.10319.abs.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nebres MV, Mark HF: Breast cancer among Asian women. Medicine and Health Rhode Island. 1996, 79: 388-391.Google Scholar
  27. Pineda MD, White E, Kristal AR, Taylor V: Asian breast cancer survival in the US: a comparison between Asian immigrants, US-born Asian Americans and Caucasians. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2001, 30: 976-982. 10.1093/ije/30.5.976.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kagawa-Singer M, Pourat N: Asian American and Pacific Islander breast and cervical carcinoma screening rates and Healthy People 2000 Objectives. Cancer. 2000, 89: 696-705. 10.1002/1097-0142(20000801)89:3<696::AID-CNCR27>3.0.CO;2-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kagawa-Singer M: Addressing issues for early detection and screening in ethnic populations--an update. Oncology Nursing Forum. 2000, 27: 62-63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Haas JS, Phillips KA, Sonneborn D, McCulloch CE, Liang SY: Effect of managed care insurance on the use of preventive care for specific ethnic groups in the United States. Medical Care. 2002, 40: 743-751. 10.1097/00005650-200209000-00004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, Burke W, Costanza ME, Evans III WP, Foster Jr. RS, Hendrick E, Eyre HJ, Sener S: American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2003, 53:Google Scholar
  32. Green BB, Taplin SH: Breast cancer screening controversies. Journal of the American Board of Family Practice. 2003, 16: 233-241.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kerkolikowske K: Efficacy of screening mammography among women aged 40-49 and 50-59: comparison of relative and absolute benefit. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997, 22: 79-81.Google Scholar
  34. Wisker G: The postgraduate research handbook: succeed with your MA, MPhil, EdD and PhD. 2001, New York, New York, Palgrave, 141-142.Google Scholar
  35. May DS, Kiefe CI, Funkhouser E, Fouad MN: Compliance with mammography guidelines: physician recommendation and patient adherence. Preventive Medicine. 1999, 28: 386-394. 10.1006/pmed.1998.0443.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Reeves MJ, Remington PL: Use of patient reminder letters to promote cancer screening services in women: a population-based study in Wisconsin. Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1999, 29: 202-209. 10.1006/pmed.1999.0526.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Maurer WJ: Breast cancer screening complacency and compliance. Wisconsin Medical Journal. 1995, 94: 305-306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Lipkus IM, Rimer BK, Halabi S, Strigo TS: Can tailored interventions increase mammography use among HMO women?. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2000, 18: 1-10. 10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00106-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Saywell RM Jr., Champion VL, Skinner CS, McQuillen D, Martin D, Maraj M: Cost-effectiveness comparison of five interventions to increase mammography screening. Preventive Medicine. 1999, 29: 374-382. 10.1006/pmed.1999.0568.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Ludman EJ, Curry SJ, Meyer D: Implementation of outreach telephone counseling to promote mammography participation. Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education. 1999, 26: 689-702.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Taplin SH, Barlow W, Ludman E, MacLehos R, Meyer DM, Seger D, Herta D, Chin C, Curry S: Testing reminder and motivational telephone calls to increase screening mammography: a randomized study. Journal of National Cancer Institute. 2000, 92: 233-242. 10.1093/jnci/92.3.233.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Barr JK, Franks AL, Lee NC: A randomized three-group intervention to improve ongoing participation in mammography. 1998Google Scholar
  43. Hayes C, O'Herlihy B, Hynes M: The impact of reminder letters on attendance for breast cancer screening. Irish Journal of Medical Science. 1999, 168: 29-32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Vellozzi CJ, Romans M, Rothenberg RB: Delivering breast and cervical cancer screening services to underserved women: part I. literature review and telephone survey. Women's Health Issues. 1996, 6: 65-73. 10.1016/1049-3867(96)00002-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Clover K, Redman S, Forbes J, Sanson-Fisher R, Callaghan T: Two sequential randomized trials of community participation to recruit women for mammographic screening. Preventive Medicine. 1996, 25:Google Scholar
  46. Andresen J: Cultural competence and health care: Japanese, Korean, and Indian patients in the United States. Journal of Cultural Diversity. 2001, 8: 109-121.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Frank E, Rimer BK, Brogan D, Elon L: U.S. women physicians' personal and clinical breast cancer screening practices. Journal of Women's Health & Gender-Based Medicine. 2000, 9: 719-801. 10.1089/15246090050147763.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Frisbie PW, Cho Y, Hummer RA: Immigration and the health of Asian and Pacific Islander adults in the United States. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2001, 153: 372-380. 10.1093/aje/153.4.372.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Ryu H, Young WB, Park C: Korean American health insurance and health services utilizatiion. Research in Nursing and Health. 2001, 24: 494-505. 10.1002/nur.10009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Tang TS, Solomon LJ, McCracken LM: Cultural barriers to mammography, clincal breast exam, and breast self-exam among Chinese-American women 60 and older. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2000, 31: 575-583. 10.1006/pmed.2000.0753.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Ajzen I, Fisbein M: The prediction of behavior from attitudinal and normative variables. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1970, 6: 466-487.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Becker MH: The health belief model and personal health behavior. 1974, Thorofare, N. J., C. B. SlackGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Sadler et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2003

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.