Centro Comunitario Juan Diego

Introduccin: Los

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.

We offer a framework and exemplify how to integrate multiple community perspectives in research to develop breast cancer screening interventions among Latinas non-adherent to national guidelines. We leverage members of an academic institution's community consultative service [community engagement advisory board (CEAB) members]; study team members [community health workers (CHWs)] and study-eligible individuals (non-adherent Latinas). First, we asked what was needed from CEAB members (N=17), CHWs (N=14) and non-adherent Latinas (N=20) in one-time semi-structured group consultations and focus groups. Second, we drafted materials. Third, we conducted group consultations and focus groups with a new set of CEAB members (N=13), CHWs (N=17) and non-adherent Latinas (N=16) to reflect on our initial analysis and draft materials. Fourth, we finalized interventions. Certain recommendations were shared across stakeholders and simple to integrate (e.g. costs → access to free services). Some recommendations varied, but complementary integration was possible (e.g. location versus recruitment → multiple recruitment in multiple community areas). Others were distinct across stakeholders and resulted in strategies to recognize participants' agency and inform their choices about breast cancer screening (e.g. differences in preferred information about screening → personalized information and evidence about all screening options).