> Detailanzeige

Molina, Yamilé; San Miguel, Liliana G.; Tamayo, Lizeth; Pichardo, Catherine; Torres, Paola; Robledo, Casandra; Diaz, Leslie; Ruiz, Izalia; Sánchez Díaz, Carola T.; Arroyo, Juanita; Medina, Maria; Coronado, Nora; Hernandez, Olivia; Lucio, Araceli; Fitzgibbon, Marian L.; Kroenke, Candyce H.

Comparing Different Interventions’ Effects on Latinas’ Screening Mammography Attainment and Participant-Driven Information Diffusion

Literatur-
verwaltung

Zur
Merkliste

Lösche von
Merkliste

Per Whatsapp teilen

Schließen

Merkliste



Sie können Bookmarks mittels Listen verwalten, loggen Sie sich dafür bitte in Ihr SLUB Benutzerkonto ein.
  • Medientyp: E-Artikel
  • Titel: Comparing Different Interventions’ Effects on Latinas’ Screening Mammography Attainment and Participant-Driven Information Diffusion
  • Beteiligte: Molina, Yamilé; San Miguel, Liliana G.; Tamayo, Lizeth; Pichardo, Catherine; Torres, Paola; Robledo, Casandra; Diaz, Leslie; Ruiz, Izalia; Sánchez Díaz, Carola T.; Arroyo, Juanita; Medina, Maria; Coronado, Nora; Hernandez, Olivia; Lucio, Araceli; Fitzgibbon, Marian L.; Kroenke, Candyce H.
  • Erschienen: SAGE Publications, 2021
  • Erschienen in: Health Education & Behavior, 48 (2021) 6, Seite 818-830
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • DOI: 10.1177/10901981211010448
  • ISSN: 1552-6127; 1090-1981
  • Entstehung:
  • Anmerkungen:
  • Beschreibung: Evaluation of multiple community-based approaches to improve Latinas’ breast cancer (BC) screening utilization has resulted in inconsistent findings. Factors contributing to this variation include heterogeneity in approaches (e.g., types of conceptual frameworks) and study quality (e.g., lack of measurement of spillover effects). This pilot study sought to clarify which approach may be most effective by evaluating the relative efficacy of two conceptual approaches using an area-level design with 145 Latinas nonadherent to U.S. Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) BC screening guidelines. Each study arm included identical intervention format and duration (e.g., three group-based sessions, logistic assistance (LA) via five monthly calls and referral to free/low-cost screening programs). However, study content differed. While educate+LA addressed participants’ BC prevention and screening behavior, empower+LA addressed participants’ and their social networks’ BC screening. After adjusting for age, insurance status, and baseline mammography intention, when compared with educate+LA participants, empower+LA participants were more likely to report obtaining mammograms, engaging more individuals about BC, initiating BC conversations in public settings, and discussing mammography specifically. Our study has important implications regarding the utility of evaluating behavioral interventions overall in terms of behavioral and spillover network effects.