Breastcancer, Breast Diseases
Conditions
Keywords
Mammography Screening, Latinas, Breast cancer disparities
Brief summary
The participatory-based project will quantify the 'added benefit' of an empowerment intervention relative to an education intervention for 150 Latinas on the following outcomes: women's adherence to breast cancer screening guidelines; women's psychosocial facilitators (self-efficacy, norms, support, and knowledge); and women's dissemination of breast health messages throughout their social network. The empowerment intervention will train Latinas in how to discuss breast health with their family and friends and volunteer in local breast health promotion programs. Academic, clinician, and community partners will work together throughout intervention development and evaluation.
Detailed description
Latinas suffer disproportionately from breast cancer relative to non-Latina Whites (NLWs), including late stage detection. While there have been controversies in breast cancer screening, non-adherence to guideline-concordant screening continues to be a major modifiable determinant of breast cancer outcome disparities. Thus, increasing participation in breast cancer screening among Latinas, especially care that corresponds with clinical and academic guidelines, is a public health priority. Participatory approaches are popular methods to improve screening within this group and have included approaches that 1) deliver education to non-adherent Latinas and 2) train community health advocates (community health workers, breast cancer survivors) to engage in breast health promotion. The second approach (empowerment interventions) concerns training participants to engage in social outreach (e.g., having conversations with family and friends about breast health) and volunteering (e.g., helping in health fairs, engaging in civic campaigns about breast cancer programs). Patient activation and volunteerism literature suggest that empowerment interventions may have 'added value' for participants themselves over delivering education in terms of preventive health psychosocial factors and practices. Relative to education interventions, empowerment interventions may also affect women's networks, as they may be more likely to disseminate evidence-based breast health promotion among their family and friends. To date, little research has compared interventions' effects on individual-level outcomes or used formal social network analysis to examine network effects. The proposed work adds to the literature through empirically comparing two approaches (education versus empowerment) on three sets of outcomes: 1) women's own screening, 2) women's own self-efficacy, norms, support, knowledge; and 3) women's networks (measured by egocentric analysis). I will lead this work and will benefit from the collective expertise and resources of my mentors (Drs. Ferrans, Mermelstein, Geller) and collaborators (Dr. Schneider, The Resurrection Project, Metropolitan Chicago Breast Cancer Task Force, Sinai Urban Health Institute, University of Illinois Cancer Center). Aim 1 intervention development will be accomplished through continuous stakeholder engagement and specifically through meetings and focus groups with a bilingual, bicultural community advisory engagement board (CEAB), UICC radiologists and target participants (non-adherent Latinas). We have already begun this process and are obtaining formative data. After we develop intervention materials, a pilot trial will be conducted with an area-level treatment control group design in Chicago. Participants will be 150 Latinas with no history of health volunteerism, residence in one of two targeted areas, and non-adherence to US Preventive Services Task Force screening guidelines. Aim 1 intervention evaluation will involve an analysis to compare differences in receipt of a medical record-confirmed screening within six months of participating in the study. Aim 2 will be an analysis to compare interventions' effects on self-efficacy, norms, support, knowledge across three time points - pre-intervention, immediately post-intervention, and six months post-intervention. Aim 3 will be a social network analysis, specifically egocentric, to compare interventions' effects on breast health, network size, and network density as well as will number of peers referred to the study.
Interventions
Three group sessions (breast cancer education; communication; volunteerism) 1.5 hours 3 times across 3 weeks
Three group sessions (breast cancer education; diet; physical activity) 1.5 hours 3 times across 3 weeks
Sponsors
Study design
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
* Age 52-75 years old; * Identification as Latina/Hispanic/Chicana female; * Residence in Pilsen, Little Village, East Side or South Chicago; * No history of health volunteerism; * No history of breast cancer; and * Lack of a mammogram within the last two years
Exclusion criteria
* Not meeting all inclusion criteria; * Women will be excluded if they participated in formative focus groups
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Participants Who Have Obtained Breast Cancer Screening | 6 months | Receipt of mammogram based on medical records and self report within 6 months of baseline survey (Yes or No) |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Changes in Psychosocial Facilitators of Screening Survey Measures | Baseline and 6 months | Total scores/ranges are used. No subscales used. Knowledge - 5 items (Williams et al., 2011). Range for the change scores (baseline to 6-months) is -5 to 5. Higher scores represent a better outcome. Cultural beliefs - Ferrans cultural beliefs scale (Ferrans et al., 2007). Range for the change scores (baseline to 6-months) is -17 to 17. Higher scores represent a worse outcome. Breast cancer-specific self-efficacy - Mammography-Specific Self-Efficacy Scale (Champion, Skinner, & Menon, 2005). Range for the change scores (baseline to 6-months) is -26 to 26. Higher scores represent a better outcome. Positive breast cancer screening norms - 6 items ( Molina et al., 2015). Range for the change scores (baseline to 6-months) is -12 to 12. Higher scores represent a better outcome. Breast cancer supportive social network size questions comprised an 8-item version of Berkman-Syme index. Range for the change scores (baseline to 6-months) is -25 to 25. Higher scores represent a better outcome. |
| Number of Individuals to Whom Participants Exchanged Information About Breast Cancer Screening. | 6 months | This was an open-ended questionnaire, based on the Burt Social Network Instrument. Higher numbers represent better outcomes. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Empowerment Behavior: Empowerment
Empowerment: Three group sessions (breast cancer education; communication; volunteerism) 1.5 hours 3 times across 3 weeks | 76 |
| Education Behavior: Education
Education: Three group sessions (breast cancer education; diet; physical activity) 1.5 hours 3 times across 3 weeks | 69 |
| Total | 145 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Lost to Follow-up | 22 | 13 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Empowerment | Education | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 61.05 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.29 | 61.28 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.36 | 61.16 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.3 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 76 Participants | 69 Participants | 145 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Insurance | 24 Participants | 40 Participants | 64 Participants |
| Mammogram 4+ years ago | 22 Participants | 30 Participants | 52 Participants |
| Mammography intention within next year | 48 Participants | 40 Participants | 88 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 76 participants | 69 participants | 145 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 76 Participants | 69 Participants | 145 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 76 | 3 / 69 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 76 | 0 / 69 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 76 | 0 / 69 |
Outcome results
Number of Participants Who Have Obtained Breast Cancer Screening
Receipt of mammogram based on medical records and self report within 6 months of baseline survey (Yes or No)
Time frame: 6 months
Population: Complete case analysis used - only participants who were retained until 6 month follow-up.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Empowerment | Number of Participants Who Have Obtained Breast Cancer Screening | 49 Participants |
| Education | Number of Participants Who Have Obtained Breast Cancer Screening | 29 Participants |
Changes in Psychosocial Facilitators of Screening Survey Measures
Total scores/ranges are used. No subscales used. Knowledge - 5 items (Williams et al., 2011). Range for the change scores (baseline to 6-months) is -5 to 5. Higher scores represent a better outcome. Cultural beliefs - Ferrans cultural beliefs scale (Ferrans et al., 2007). Range for the change scores (baseline to 6-months) is -17 to 17. Higher scores represent a worse outcome. Breast cancer-specific self-efficacy - Mammography-Specific Self-Efficacy Scale (Champion, Skinner, & Menon, 2005). Range for the change scores (baseline to 6-months) is -26 to 26. Higher scores represent a better outcome. Positive breast cancer screening norms - 6 items ( Molina et al., 2015). Range for the change scores (baseline to 6-months) is -12 to 12. Higher scores represent a better outcome. Breast cancer supportive social network size questions comprised an 8-item version of Berkman-Syme index. Range for the change scores (baseline to 6-months) is -25 to 25. Higher scores represent a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline and 6 months
Population: This is a complete case analysis for outcome data, with all available data being used for participants who completed the 6-month follow-up.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Empowerment | Changes in Psychosocial Facilitators of Screening Survey Measures | Supportive Network size | 1.38 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.66 |
| Empowerment | Changes in Psychosocial Facilitators of Screening Survey Measures | Cultural Beliefs | -1.36 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.94 |
| Empowerment | Changes in Psychosocial Facilitators of Screening Survey Measures | Self-Efficacy | 1.02 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.67 |
| Empowerment | Changes in Psychosocial Facilitators of Screening Survey Measures | Social Norms | 0.25 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.42 |
| Empowerment | Changes in Psychosocial Facilitators of Screening Survey Measures | Knowledge | 0.98 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.6 |
| Education | Changes in Psychosocial Facilitators of Screening Survey Measures | Self-Efficacy | -1.00 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.99 |
| Education | Changes in Psychosocial Facilitators of Screening Survey Measures | Knowledge | 1.37 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.69 |
| Education | Changes in Psychosocial Facilitators of Screening Survey Measures | Cultural Beliefs | -2.41 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.13 |
| Education | Changes in Psychosocial Facilitators of Screening Survey Measures | Social Norms | 0.32 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.94 |
| Education | Changes in Psychosocial Facilitators of Screening Survey Measures | Supportive Network size | 5.85 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.11 |
Number of Individuals to Whom Participants Exchanged Information About Breast Cancer Screening.
This was an open-ended questionnaire, based on the Burt Social Network Instrument. Higher numbers represent better outcomes.
Time frame: 6 months
Population: Complete case analysis used, wherein we focus on participants who completed the 6-month follow-up surveys.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Empowerment | Number of Individuals to Whom Participants Exchanged Information About Breast Cancer Screening. | 8.27 family/friends engaged | Standard Deviation 6.17 |
| Education | Number of Individuals to Whom Participants Exchanged Information About Breast Cancer Screening. | 5.81 family/friends engaged | Standard Deviation 12.58 |