Skip to content

Intervention to Promote Breast Cancer Screening Among American Indian Women

Intervention to Promote Breast Cancer Screening Among American Indian Women

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05530603
Enrollment
133
Registered
2022-09-07
Start date
2020-10-03
Completion date
2023-07-31
Last updated
2025-03-17

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Breast Cancer

Brief summary

Our objectives in this project are to develop and evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the Mobile Web App Breast Cancer Screening (wMammogram) intervention that is culturally tailored for AI women residing in rural areas. The proposed study will be a multi-method, two-phase research project that will take place in South Dakota over a three-year period. The two phases are: (1) developing the wMammogram intervention and (2) evaluating the feasibility and efficacy of the wMammogram. Phase 1 incorporates a community-based participatory research approach and a series of focus groups with various stakeholders in American Indian (AI) communities to design a culturally informed and practically refined intervention. Phase 2 uses a randomized clinical trial (RCT) design with AI women. The wMammogram intervention will be applied throughout a seven-day period, with assessment at three intervals: baseline (survey), one-week post-intervention (survey), and six-month follow-up (telephone survey). The wMammogram intervention will be implemented with AI women using the two-arm RCT that includes recruiting a total of 120 AI women aged 40 to 70 years and randomly assigning them to either (a) the wMammogram intervention group (n=60) to receive culturally and personally tailored multilevel and multimedia messages through a Mobile Web App along with health navigator services or (b) the control group (n=60) to receive the mailing of printed educational materials on breast cancer and relevant screening guidelines along with health navigator services. Hypotheses: In assessing the efficacy and feasibility of the wMammogram, Investigators hypothesize that: (H1)The wMammogram intervention participants will show a higher rate of mammograms received than will participants in the educational materials intervention. (H2)The wMammogram intervention participants will show improvements in knowledge, attitude, and beliefs about breast cancer screening and readiness for mammography as compared to participants in the educational materials intervention. (H3)The wMammogram intervention participants will demonstrate greater satisfaction with and acceptance of the intervention than would participants in the educational materials intervention.

Detailed description

Sample Size and Power Analysis: Investigators will have 120 participants in both the intervention and the control group by the six-month follow-up assessment. Considering that the possible sample attrition at the six-month follow-up is expected to be no higher than 20% (n=24), a total of 144 participants will be recruited for the baseline assessment; half will be randomly assigned to intervention (n=72) and another half assigned to control condition (n=72). Using a one-sided nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the mixed effect ANOVA at the 0.05 level and assuming continuous scores, this sample size (60 per arm) would provide 80 percent power to reject the null hypothesis of the equality of score-changes for both groups. The key objective of the study is to acquire preliminary estimates of breast cancer screening rates after the intervention to assess if further study is warranted. As such, Investigators stress on the precision with which Investigators can estimate the breast cancer screening rate post-intervention rather than our ability to reject a specific null hypothesis. A sample size of 60 participants for each arm reflects a compromise between keeping the scope of the project within the objectives of a pilot study while ensuring a large enough sample size to estimate the breast cancer screening rate post-intervention. Quantitative Measures (Baseline, One-Week, and Six-Month Follow-Up Assessment): Measures will be selected based on the frequency of use in cancer and health literature, psychometric properties, previous applications with AI populations, and inputs from the Community Advisory Board (CAB) and focus groups. The primary outcome criterion for efficacy is mammography receipt after the intervention, which will be measured by self-report (yes or no) at six-month follow-up. The measure has been widely used and found reliable in cancer screening research. The secondary outcome criteria for efficacy include breast cancer knowledge, health beliefs, cultural attitudes, and intent to undergo screening. These measures will be administered at multiple points: baseline and one-week post-intervention. In order to assess feasibility, investigators will measure participant satisfaction and intervention effectiveness. These measures will be administered at one week after the intervention. Confounding covariates (e.g., background, sociodemographic, and health-related information) will be collected only at the baseline assessment and used for assessing the influence of such contextual factors. Quantitative Data Analysis: Prior to our hypotheses tests, group equivalence in terms of baseline characteristics will be examined using t-tests and chi-square tests. For Hypothesis 1, Investigators will compare the percentage of women from each condition who receive mammograms or have scheduled a mammography appointment using a chi-square test. Investigators will supplement this with logistic regression analyses to adjust for confounding covariates. For Hypothesis 2, the averages of score change (pre- to post-test) from the two conditions will be compared using the two-sample t-test, and/or the Wilcoxon rank-sum tests after assessing normality of the scores. The group difference in terms of changes in the given constructs will be tested by a mixed-effect analysis of variance (ANOVA). The mixed-effect ANOVA includes both within-subject (i.e., time: repeated measures) and between-subject factors (i.e., group: intervention versus control) and aims to examine whether there is an interaction between these two factors on the dependent variable. Bonferroni correction will be used to reduce the probability of Type 1 error for multiple comparisons. Investigators will supplement this with a regression analysis of score change in order to adjust for confounding covariates. For Hypothesis 3, averages of general satisfaction and effectiveness scores from each group will be compared using the two-sample t-test. Also, the percentage of participants from each group who endorse yes for the intention and recommendation items will be compared using the chi-square test. To minimize a potential non-participation bias, Investigators will closely monitor and compare the first and fourth quartiles of responses for differences in background variables and key constructs. Investigators will also carefully document the response rate over the course of this project. IBM SPSS version 25 will be used for data analyses.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALEducational mobile app

7 day educational course to educate American Indian women to receive regular mammogram.

Sponsors

University of North Dakota
CollaboratorOTHER
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
CollaboratorNIH
University of South Dakota
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Masking description

Participants are unaware of which group they have been assigned to.

Intervention model description

2 arms randomized clinical trial with control and intervention group

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
40 Years to 70 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Women who are self-identified AI women of the YST in SD * Women who are aged 40 to 70 years * Women who have not received a mammogram in the past two years * Women who are willing to use their own mobile phone, iPad, tablets, and computers, or a mobile phone borrowed from the research team for the wMammogram intervention.

Exclusion criteria

* Women who received a mammogram in the past year * Women who are under 40 or over 70 years of age.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of Participants Who Received a MammogramWeek 24This outcome was assessed based on the number of participants who reported having received a mammogram during the six-month follow-up survey. The survey asked participants, Have you ever received a mammogram since you had participated in a mammogram intervention? Participants could respond with either Yes, I have received one or No, I haven't received one yet. We calculated and compared the number of participants from each arm who received mammograms after the intervention.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Health Beliefs7 daysParticipants' health beliefs were assessed using a 5-item prevention orientation scale at one week post-intervention. The scale included items, such as Even if I do not have a family history of cancer, it is important to be checked regularly, and It is better to detect health problems early through screening efforts than discover something later and have to treat it. Each item was rated on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree. Scores for each item were calculated by summing the item responses, with total scores ranging from 5 to 20. Higher item scores indicated stronger health beliefs related to prevention orientation. Change = (Week 1 Score - Baseline Score).
Cultural Attitudes7 daysCultural attitudes toward breast cancer screening were assessed using a 6-items cultural modesty scale. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree. Higher item scores indicated stronger belief in cultural modesty. The total score for each item was computed by summing the individual item scores, ranging from 6 to 24.
Change in Participants' Breast Cancer Knowledge Levels From Baseline to Week 1Baseline and Week 1Participants' breast cancer knowledge levels were assessed using the Breast Cancer Knowledge Test, which includes 28 true- or false-items. Scores were determined by the number of correct responses, with the total score ranging from 0 to 28. Higher scores indicate greater breast cancer knowledge, with a score of 0 reflecting no knowledge and a score of 28 indicating very high knowledge. The test was updated to align with the latest American Cancer Society breast cancer screening guideline. Change = (Week 1 Score - Baseline Score).
Number of Participants Satisfied With Intervention7 daysNumber of participants satisfied with intervention they received was assessed using a 2-point scale ranging from 1=Dissatisfied/Very dissatisfied to 2=Satisfied/Very Satisfied one week after the intervention. The data values represent the number of participants satisfied with intervention with response option of 2=Satisfied/Very Satisfied.
Number of Participants Indicating Intervention Was Effective/Very Effective7 daysNumber of Participants Indicating Intervention Was Effective/Very Effective was measured one week after the intervention with the question, Do you think that the intervention you received was effective in increasing your knowledge of breast cancer and screenings? Participants responded on a 4-point scale item ranging from 1=very ineffectual to 4=very effectual. The data values represent the number of participants who indicated the intervention was 3 = Effective or 4 = Very Effective.
Number of Participants Who Intended to Receive a Mammogram in the Future7 daysNumber of Participants who intended to receive a mammogram in the future was assessed by a single question at both baseline and 1 week after the intervention. The single question asked whether a participant intended to receive a mammogram in the future, with response options of 0=No intention or 1=Yes intention. The data values represent the number of participants who intended to receive a mammogram in the future with the response of Yes intention.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Intervention
Participants are randomized to interventional arm which is seven-day intervention that requires them to download mobile app to complete educational courses each day. Participants are required to complete pre- and post-tests as part of the study. The intervention encourages education on mammogram needs. Educational mobile app: 7 day educational course to educate American Indian women to receive regular mammogram.
66
Control
Participants are randomized to control arm where they are give an education brochure. There are pre and post tests to complete.
67
Total133

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicInterventionControlTotal
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
7 Participants11 Participants18 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
59 Participants56 Participants115 Participants
Age, Continuous50.50 years55.37 years52.89 years
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
66 Participants67 Participants133 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Receipt of Mammogram26 Participants12 Participants38 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
66 Participants67 Participants133 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
66 Participants67 Participants133 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 00 / 0
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 00 / 0
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 00 / 0

Outcome results

Primary

Number of Participants Who Received a Mammogram

This outcome was assessed based on the number of participants who reported having received a mammogram during the six-month follow-up survey. The survey asked participants, Have you ever received a mammogram since you had participated in a mammogram intervention? Participants could respond with either Yes, I have received one or No, I haven't received one yet. We calculated and compared the number of participants from each arm who received mammograms after the intervention.

Time frame: Week 24

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
InterventionNumber of Participants Who Received a Mammogram26 Participants
ControlNumber of Participants Who Received a Mammogram12 Participants
p-value: 0.009Chi-squared
Secondary

Change in Participants' Breast Cancer Knowledge Levels From Baseline to Week 1

Participants' breast cancer knowledge levels were assessed using the Breast Cancer Knowledge Test, which includes 28 true- or false-items. Scores were determined by the number of correct responses, with the total score ranging from 0 to 28. Higher scores indicate greater breast cancer knowledge, with a score of 0 reflecting no knowledge and a score of 28 indicating very high knowledge. The test was updated to align with the latest American Cancer Society breast cancer screening guideline. Change = (Week 1 Score - Baseline Score).

Time frame: Baseline and Week 1

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionChange in Participants' Breast Cancer Knowledge Levels From Baseline to Week 122.95 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.58
ControlChange in Participants' Breast Cancer Knowledge Levels From Baseline to Week 121.83 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.52
p-value: 0.73ANOVA
Secondary

Cultural Attitudes

Cultural attitudes toward breast cancer screening were assessed using a 6-items cultural modesty scale. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree. Higher item scores indicated stronger belief in cultural modesty. The total score for each item was computed by summing the individual item scores, ranging from 6 to 24.

Time frame: 7 days

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionCultural Attitudes11.85 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.067
ControlCultural Attitudes12.60 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.509
p-value: 0.068ANOVA
Secondary

Health Beliefs

Participants' health beliefs were assessed using a 5-item prevention orientation scale at one week post-intervention. The scale included items, such as Even if I do not have a family history of cancer, it is important to be checked regularly, and It is better to detect health problems early through screening efforts than discover something later and have to treat it. Each item was rated on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree. Scores for each item were calculated by summing the item responses, with total scores ranging from 5 to 20. Higher item scores indicated stronger health beliefs related to prevention orientation. Change = (Week 1 Score - Baseline Score).

Time frame: 7 days

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionHealth Beliefs10.19 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.678
ControlHealth Beliefs9.95 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.692
p-value: 0.033ANOVA
Secondary

Number of Participants Indicating Intervention Was Effective/Very Effective

Number of Participants Indicating Intervention Was Effective/Very Effective was measured one week after the intervention with the question, Do you think that the intervention you received was effective in increasing your knowledge of breast cancer and screenings? Participants responded on a 4-point scale item ranging from 1=very ineffectual to 4=very effectual. The data values represent the number of participants who indicated the intervention was 3 = Effective or 4 = Very Effective.

Time frame: 7 days

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
InterventionNumber of Participants Indicating Intervention Was Effective/Very Effective62 Participants
ControlNumber of Participants Indicating Intervention Was Effective/Very Effective55 Participants
p-value: 0.001t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Number of Participants Satisfied With Intervention

Number of participants satisfied with intervention they received was assessed using a 2-point scale ranging from 1=Dissatisfied/Very dissatisfied to 2=Satisfied/Very Satisfied one week after the intervention. The data values represent the number of participants satisfied with intervention with response option of 2=Satisfied/Very Satisfied.

Time frame: 7 days

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
InterventionNumber of Participants Satisfied With Intervention60 Participants
ControlNumber of Participants Satisfied With Intervention53 Participants
p-value: 0.001t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Number of Participants Who Intended to Receive a Mammogram in the Future

Number of Participants who intended to receive a mammogram in the future was assessed by a single question at both baseline and 1 week after the intervention. The single question asked whether a participant intended to receive a mammogram in the future, with response options of 0=No intention or 1=Yes intention. The data values represent the number of participants who intended to receive a mammogram in the future with the response of Yes intention.

Time frame: 7 days

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
InterventionNumber of Participants Who Intended to Receive a Mammogram in the Future62 Participants
ControlNumber of Participants Who Intended to Receive a Mammogram in the Future51 Participants
p-value: 0.001Fisher Exact

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 9, 2026