Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20849288›Full record

ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2010

Educating Hispanic women about breast cancer prevention: evaluation of a home-based promotora-led intervention.

Jennifer C Livaudais, Gloria D Coronado, Noah Espinoza, Ilda Islas, Genoveva Ibarra, Beti Thompson

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jennifer C LivaudaisCancer Prevention Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington 98109, USA. jlivauda@fhcrc.org
Gloria D Coronado
Noah Espinoza
Ilda Islas
Genoveva Ibarra
Beti Thompson

Funding

Research Education About Cancer and Health (REACH) CoreU54CA132381 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI KAREN R PETERSON · 2007 to 2026
$25.3M
Undergraduate Student Training in Cancer ResearchU54CA132383 · NCI · NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY LAS CRUCES · PI MICHELE Irene SHUSTER · 2007 to 2026
$21.4M
Radionovela to address cervical cancer and the HPV vaccine for rural HispanicsU01CA114633 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI THOMPSON, BETI · 2005 to 2010
$2.7M
Institute for Translational Health Science (TL1)TL1RR025016 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DISIS, MARY L. · 2007 to 2011
$2.7M
NCI NIH HHS 1 U01 CA114633NCI NIH HHS U54 CA132381NCI NIH HHS U54 CA132383NCRR NIH HHS TL1 RR025016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTrained community health promoters (i.e., promotoras) conducted home-based group educational interventions (home health parties) to educate Hispanic women from the Lower Yakima Valley of Washington state about breast cancer and mammography screening.

methodsWomen aged 40-79 participating in the parties completed baseline and follow-up surveys 6 months postintervention (n = 70). Changes in general cancer knowledge, breast cancer screening practices, and intentions to be screened among participants from baseline to follow-up were measured using McNemar's test for marginal homogeneity to evaluate the effectiveness of the parties.

resultsThe average age of the sample was 50.0 years (standard deviation [SD] 10.0), 84% reported less than an eighth grade education, and 54% were covered by the state's Basic Health Care Plan. Significant changes between baseline and follow-up were observed with respect to (1) believing that risk of cancer could not be reduced (41% vs. 15%, respectively, p = 0.001), (2) ever having a mammogram (83% vs. 91%, p = 0.014), (3) discussing a mammogram with a doctor (37% vs. 67%, p < 0.001), and (4) intending to have a mammogram within the next few months among women who did not report having a mammogram between baseline and follow-up (61% vs. 81%, p = 0.046).

conclusionsParticipation in home-based group educational interventions delivered by promotoras may be associated with improved breast cancer screening practices among Hispanic women.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth PromotionHispanic or LatinoHumansMammographyMiddle AgedProgram EvaluationSurveys and QuestionnairesWashington

Identifiers

PMID20849288
PMCPMC2995340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.