Literature DB >> 34855208

Evaluating educational interventions to increase breast density awareness among Latinas: A randomized trial in a Federally Qualified Health Center.

Jennifer L Ridgeway1, Sarah M Jenkins2, Bijan J Borah1, Vera J Suman2, Bhavika K Patel3, Karthik Ghosh4, Deborah J Rhodes4, Aaron Norman2, Edna P Ramos5, Matt Jewett6, Crystal R Gonzalez7, Valentina Hernandez7, Davinder Singh6, Miranda Sosa8, Carmen Radecki Breitkopf2, Celine M Vachon2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of this randomized trial was to evaluate the short-term effect of bilingual written and interpersonal education regarding mammographic breast density (MBD).
METHODS: Latinas aged 40 to 74 years who were presenting for screening mammography were recruited and randomized 1:1:1 to receive a letter with their mammogram and MBD results (usual care [UC]), a letter plus a brochure (enhanced care [ENH]), or a letter plus a brochure and telephonic promotora education (interpersonal care [INT]). Surveys were administered at enrollment (T0 ) and 2 weeks to 6 months after intervention delivery (T1 ). Differences were assessed with χ2 , Kruskal-Wallis, and McNemar tests and pairwise comparisons as appropriate. INT metrics and audio recordings were analyzed with descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS: Between October 2016 and October 2019, 943 of 1108 Latina participants (85%) completed both surveys. At T1 , INT participants were more likely (P < .001) to report seeing their MBD results in the letter (70.2%) than UC (53.1%) or ENH participants (55.1%). The percentage of INT women who reported speaking with a provider about MBD (29.0%) was significantly greater (P < .001) than the percentage of UC (14.7%) or ENH participants (15.6%). All groups saw significant (P < .001) but nondifferential improvements in their knowledge of MBD as a masking and risk factor. In the INT group, the promotora delivered education to 77.1% of the 446 participants randomized to INT and answered questions at 28.3% of the encounters for an average of $4.70 per participant.
CONCLUSIONS: Among Latinas in a low-resource setting, MBD knowledge may increase with written or interpersonal education, but with modest investment, interpersonal education may better improve MBD awareness and prompt patient-provider discussions.
© 2021 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast screening; health disparities; mammographic breast density (MBD); mammography; randomized clinical trial

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34855208      PMCID: PMC8837698          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  25 in total

Review 1.  Breast density and breast cancer risk: a practical review.

Authors:  Amy T Wang; Celine M Vachon; Kathleen R Brandt; Karthik Ghosh
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 7.616

2.  Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

Authors:  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh; Sarah E Shannon
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2005-11

3.  Academic-Community Partnership to Develop a Patient-Centered Breast Cancer Risk Reduction Program for Latina Primary Care Patients.

Authors:  Sheila F Castañeda; Rebeca E Giacinto; Elizabeth A Medeiros; Ilana Brongiel; Olga Cardona; Patricia Perez; Gregory A Talavera
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2015-05-28

4.  Women's perceptions of dense breast notifications in a Massachusetts safety net hospital: "So what is that supposed to mean?"

Authors:  Christine M Gunn; Tracy A Battaglia; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Amanda K West; Nancy R Kressin
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2018-02-06

5.  Dense Breast Notification Laws, Education, and Women's Awareness and Knowledge of Breast Density: a Nationally Representative Survey.

Authors:  Kelly A Kyanko; Jessica Hoag; Susan H Busch; Jenerius A Aminawung; Xiao Xu; Ilana B Richman; Cary P Gross
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Primary Care Provider Experience with Breast Density Legislation in Massachusetts.

Authors:  Christine M Gunn; Nancy R Kressin; Kristina Cooper; Cinthya Marturano; Karen M Freund; Tracy A Battaglia
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2018-01-17       Impact factor: 2.681

7.  Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, part I: National cancer statistics.

Authors:  S Jane Henley; Elizabeth M Ward; Susan Scott; Jiemin Ma; Robert N Anderson; Albert U Firth; Cheryll C Thomas; Farhad Islami; Hannah K Weir; Denise Riedel Lewis; Recinda L Sherman; Manxia Wu; Vicki B Benard; Lisa C Richardson; Ahmedin Jemal; Kathleen Cronin; Betsy A Kohler
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-03-12       Impact factor: 6.921

8.  The effect of two church-based interventions on breast cancer screening rates among Medicaid-insured Latinas.

Authors:  Adrienne L Welsh; Angela Sauaia; Jillian Jacobellis; Sung-joon Min; Tim Byers
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2005-09-15       Impact factor: 2.830

Review 9.  An overview of mammographic density and its association with breast cancer.

Authors:  Shayan Shaghayeq Nazari; Pinku Mukherjee
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 4.239

Review 10.  RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Adapting to New Science and Practice With a 20-Year Review.

Authors:  Russell E Glasgow; Samantha M Harden; Bridget Gaglio; Borsika Rabin; Matthew Lee Smith; Gwenndolyn C Porter; Marcia G Ory; Paul A Estabrooks
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2019-03-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.