Eleni L Tolma1, Julie A Stoner2, Cara Thomas3, Kimberly Engelman4, Ji Li5, Aleksandar Dichkov3, Norma Neely6. 1. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Faculty of Public Health, Kuwait University Health Sciences Center, P.O. Box 24923, Safat, 13110 Kuwait. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 801 NE 13th Street, CHB 309, Oklahoma City, OK 73126, x 49480. 3. Department of Health Promotion Sciences, College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73126. 4. Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine, 3901 Rainbow Blvd., Kansas City, KS 66160. 5. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 801 NE 13th Street, CHB 203, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, x 30126. 6. American Indian Institute, University of Oklahoma, 1639 Cross Center Drive, Norman, OK 73019.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is an important public health issue among American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) women. However, there are very few published studies describing the evaluation of breast health promotion programs among AI/AN women. PURPOSE: To describe the formative evaluation of a multi-component intervention to promote mammography screening in an AI community in rural Oklahoma. METHODS: A comprehensive process evaluation plan with emphasis on context, reach, dose received, dose delivered, and fidelity was developed. Data collection included mixed research methodology and impact was assessed via one group pre/post research design. Data analysis consisted of descriptive statistical analysis and content analysis. The study utilized a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach. RESULTS: Process evaluation revealed a relatively high reach within the priority population for both components (clinic and community) and a moderate implementation. Focus group research showed that participants were overall satisfied with program implementation. The intervention was feasible to implement in real-world settings. TRANSLATION TO HEALTH EDUCATION PRACTICE: Community-based evaluation of breast health promotion programs among AI communities is challenging, as one has to balance methodological rigor with practical constraints. The use of an evaluation plan, mixed methods and a collaborative approach are useful tools in conducting the evaluation.
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is an important public health issue among American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) women. However, there are very few published studies describing the evaluation of breast health promotion programs among AI/AN women. PURPOSE: To describe the formative evaluation of a multi-component intervention to promote mammography screening in an AI community in rural Oklahoma. METHODS: A comprehensive process evaluation plan with emphasis on context, reach, dose received, dose delivered, and fidelity was developed. Data collection included mixed research methodology and impact was assessed via one group pre/post research design. Data analysis consisted of descriptive statistical analysis and content analysis. The study utilized a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach. RESULTS: Process evaluation revealed a relatively high reach within the priority population for both components (clinic and community) and a moderate implementation. Focus group research showed that participants were overall satisfied with program implementation. The intervention was feasible to implement in real-world settings. TRANSLATION TO HEALTH EDUCATION PRACTICE: Community-based evaluation of breast health promotion programs among AI communities is challenging, as one has to balance methodological rigor with practical constraints. The use of an evaluation plan, mixed methods and a collaborative approach are useful tools in conducting the evaluation.
Entities:
Keywords:
American Indian/Alaska Native; Community; Evaluation; Mammography; Theory of Planned Behavior
Authors: Julie Legler; Helen I Meissner; Cathy Coyne; Nancy Breen; Veronica Chollette; Barbara K Rimer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Njeri Karanja; Tam Lutz; Cheryl Ritenbaugh; Gerardo Maupome; Joshua Jones; Thomas Becker; Mikel Aickin Journal: J Community Health Date: 2010-12
Authors: Judith K Ockene; Elizabeth A Edgerton; Steven M Teutsch; Lucy N Marion; Therese Miller; Janice L Genevro; Carol J Loveland-Cherry; Jonathan E Fielding; Peter A Briss Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Deborah J Bowen; Matthew Kreuter; Bonnie Spring; Ludmila Cofta-Woerpel; Laura Linnan; Diane Weiner; Suzanne Bakken; Cecilia Patrick Kaplan; Linda Squiers; Cecilia Fabrizio; Maria Fernandez Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Sally C Moyce; Nathaniel Sisson; Sophia Thompson; Maria Velazqueaz; David Claudio; Elizabeth Aghbashian; Heather Demorest; Karl Vanderwood Journal: Am J Health Educ Date: 2021-02-17
Authors: Nina Zipfel; Bedra Horreh; Carel T J Hulshof; Angela G E M de Boer; Sylvia J van der Burg-Vermeulen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 3.006