Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31121040›Full record

ArticleHealth education research2019

Integrating multiple community perspectives in intervention development.

Yamilï Molina, Karriem S Watson, Liliana G San Miguel, Karen Aguirre, Mariana Hernandez-Flores, Tatiana B Giraldo, Araceli Lucio, Nora Coronado, Phoenix A Matthews

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health education research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Comparing Different Interventions' Effects on Latinas' Screening Mammography Attainment and Participant-Driven Information Diffusion.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Multilevel determinants of financial toxicity in breast cancer care: perspectives of healthcare professionals and Latina survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
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

9 authors.

Yamilï MolinaSchool of Public Health.
Karriem S WatsonUniversity of Illinois Cancer Center.
Liliana G San MiguelCommunity Health Sciences Division, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Karen AguirreCommunity Health Sciences Division, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Mariana Hernandez-FloresCommunity Health Sciences Division, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Tatiana B GiraldoCommunity Health Sciences Division, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Araceli LucioThe Resurrection Project, Chicago, IL, USA.
Nora CoronadoCentro Comunitario Juan Diego, Chicago, IL, USA.
Phoenix A MatthewsCollege of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

Strengthening Stakeholder Engagement in Human Research Protections.UL1TR002003 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI KARNIK, NIRANJAN SUBHASH, MERMELSTEIN, ROBIN J. · 2016 to 2024
$33.7M
Empowering Latinas to Obtain Breast Cancer ScreeningsK01CA193918 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI MOLINA, YAMILE · 2016 to 2020
$729k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002003NCI NIH HHS K01 CA193918NIMHD NIH HHS L60 MD012111
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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).

Indexed as

Community ParticipationHispanic or LatinoMass ScreeningPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient ComplianceAdultBreast NeoplasmsFemaleFocus GroupsGuideline AdherenceHumans

Identifiers

PMID31121040
PMCPMC6646948

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.