4.3 Article

Effectiveness of Village Health Volunteer Parallel Program for Proactive Action to Reduce Risk Factors for Cholangiocarcinoma in Two High-Risk Countries in the Greater Mekong Subregion

Journal

NUTRITION AND CANCER-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Volume 74, Issue 5, Pages 1724-1733

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01635581.2021.1957949

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ubon Ratchathani Rajabhat University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

By training village health volunteers to educate locals on the prevention of cholangiocarcinoma, the program effectively reduced risk factors in the risk areas, showing promise for application in other regions.
Thailand and Laos were classified as risk areas for cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) in a 2017 assessment in the Greater Mekong Subregion. In 2019, the potential of village health volunteers (VHVs) in both risk areas was developed. The VHVs trained in 2014 (VHV-A) were mentors transferring knowledge of CCA prevention to the trainees (known as VHV-B) in a parallel manner. After that, VHV-Bs in each area educated people to change their behavior. Both parties worked in the same direction to reduce risk factors. In 2020, data were collected after the program was organized in the same populations. The people were aged 30-69 years, whose names were in the civil registration, and had lived in that area for at least five years. Afterward, no less than 172 participants from each location were randomly selected. The research tools used were intervention and questionnaires. Descriptive and inferential statistics were employed for data analysis. After the experiment, all the experimental group's risk factors were significantly different from those of the control group. This study's outcome was an effective program for proactive action in reducing risk factors in the risk areas. Therefore, it should be applied to reduce risk factors for CCA in other regions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available