RESUMEN
UK South Asian women are less likely to engage with cancer screening than the general population and present later with more advanced disease. Tailored interventions are needed to address barriers to these women accessing screening services. 'Wise up to cancer' is a community-based health intervention designed to increase cancer screening uptake. It has been implemented within the general population and a study was undertaken to implement it within a South Asian female community. This paper explores one workstream of the wider 'Wise up to Cancer' study which involved working out how best to adapt the baseline questionnaire (the first part of the intervention) for South Asian women in an inner-city location in Northern England. The aim of this workstream was to evaluate what worked well when implementing the adapted 'Wise up to Cancer' with South Asian women. In 2018, we conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews and focus group with 14 key stakeholders; women who had received the intervention, health champions and community workers to explore their perspectives on how the adapted intervention worked within a South Asian female community. The interviews were audio recorded or (notes taken), data were transcribed verbatim and the dataset was thematically analysed. We found that training peers as community health champions to deliver the intervention to address language and cultural barriers increased participant engagement, was beneficial for the peers and supported participants who revealed difficult social issues they may not have otherwise discussed. Accessing women in established community groups, following planned activities such as English language classes worked but flexibility was needed to meet individual women's needs. Further research is needed to explore the impact of adapting 'Wise up to Cancer' for this community in terms of engaging with cancer screening.
Asunto(s)
Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Neoplasias , Pueblo Asiatico , Femenino , Grupos Focales , Humanos , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Neoplasias/prevención & control , Reino UnidoAsunto(s)
Experimentación Animal , Alternativas a las Pruebas en Animales , Bienestar del Animal , Políticas Editoriales , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto , Experimentación Animal/ética , Experimentación Animal/legislación & jurisprudencia , Experimentación Animal/normas , Alternativas a las Pruebas en Animales/economía , Alternativas a las Pruebas en Animales/legislación & jurisprudencia , Alternativas a las Pruebas en Animales/normas , Bienestar del Animal/legislación & jurisprudencia , Animales , Ética en Investigación , Guías como Asunto , Humanos , Revisión de la Investigación por Pares , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/ética , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/normas , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
This study evaluates the editorial policies of a randomized sample of English language peer-reviewed journals that publish original research involving the use of animals. The aim is to identify whether journals have editorial policies relating to the use of animals in the research that they are prepared to publish and whether any policies are likely to promote animal welfare and dissemination of information on the 3Rs (reduction, refinement, replacement) within the scientific community. The results demonstrate that a significant proportion of journals publishing original research involving animals do not have any editorial policy relating to the use of animals. Of those journals that do have policies the majority simply request that the research be carried out in accordance with standard regulatory requirements. This paper aims to provide editors and publishers with the information they need to review their own editorial policies to ensure they are fulfilling their potential to promote animal welfare and dissemination of the 3Rs.