Table 2 Studies examining the effectiveness of community-level interventions on cancer awareness outcomes

Blumenthal et al (2005)

Any cancer

Controlled study (non-randomised) comparing:

Areas with black population in Nashville and Atlanta vs

Areas with black population in two cities receiving no campaign

Public education campaign in two US cities (Nashville and Atlanta) to increase knowledge of several cancers in African-American communities, delivered by broadcast and print media, lectures, workshops, lectures, presentations over 18 months in 1994–1996.

African-American adults living in the four cities approached by random digit dialling

(4053 before intervention;

3914 after intervention)

Knowledge, beliefs and attitudes towards cancer risk factors and screening

No difference. Quantitative data not provided.

Skinner et al (2000)

Breast

Controlled study (non-randomised) in one US city (St Louis) comparing:

one managed social network for low income elderly people receiving the programme vs

one similar managed social network not receiving the programme

Educational programme delivered in small groups by a health professional to 32 women (mainly African-American) over three sessions, to increase breast cancer knowledge and screening uptake and promoting message dissemination to others in the social network.

153 women (mean age 73) 99% African-American, members of the social network provided data both before-and-after intervention

Knowledge of breast cancer symptoms, risk factors and risk (range 0, 8) after 8 months

Higher in group education programme vs control networks 4.1 vs 3.6, P<0.0001)

Kiekbusch et al (2000)

Melanoma

Controlled study (non-randomised) in Sweden comparing:

one village receiving kiosk vs

one similar village not receiving kiosk

Interactive multimedia programme housed in kiosk in the centre of a village (in the pharmacy, then health centre, then library) to increase melanoma knowledge over 3 years.

Swedish adults aged 20–59 living in the villages recruited from population registries (648 before intervention;

604 after intervention)

Knowledge of melanoma symptoms, risk factors, risk, preventive measures (range 1, 3) at the end of intervention

No difference (kiosk village vs control village:

Men: 2.70 vs 2.68, P-value not provided;

women: 2.72 vs 2.75, P-value not provided)

McCullagh et al (2005)

Testicular

Controlled study (non-randomised) in the United Kingdom comparing:

ten sites receiving the health promotion initiative vs

four sites receiving no health promotion initiative

Health promotion initiative with printed shower gel sachets, stickers and posters displayed in changing rooms in workplaces, health clubs and leisure centres, to increase knowledge of testicular cancer and promote self-examination, delivered once to each site.

Men aged 15–44 attending workplaces, health clubs and leisure centres in United Kingdom (518 before intervention;

356 after intervention)

Knowledge of testicular cancer symptoms, risk and survival (range 0, 5) after 6 weeks

Higher in health promotion initiative sites vs control sites (4 vs 3, P=0.014)