Search

Introduction: We examined the effectiveness of a lay health worker (promotora)-delivered intervention on increasing breast and cervical cancer screening among low-income, primarily uninsured Latinas living in El Paso, Texas.Methods: In 2015, Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening (BCCS) program promotoras recruited Latinas overdue for breast and/or cervical cancer screening in community settings. Promotoras consented eligible women and conducted baseline surveys before individually randomizing women into control (n = 313) or intervention (n = 314) groups. Control participants received printed material providing basic information about breast and cervical cancer screening.Intervention participants received promotora-delivered one-on-one breast and cervical cancer screening education followed by navigation calls, providing assistance to address personal and logistic barriers to accessing clinical services. We assessed breast and cervical cancer screening outcomes using a 6-month follow-up survey. Per protocol (PP) and intent to treat (ITT) analyses are reported.Results: At follow-up, among women in need of breast cancer screening, those in the intervention group were significantly more likely to complete a mammogram than those in the control group (PP: 53.4% vs. 40.1%, p = .013; ITT: 47.9% vs. 35.2%, p = .011). Among women in need of Pap screening, only intervention group women 50 years and older were more likely to complete a Pap screening compared with control group women (PP: 64.5% vs. 43.5%, p = .019).Conclusions: A promotora-delivered behavioral intervention, embedded in a community-based organization, increased mammography uptake in all women and Pap uptake among women 50 years and older in a sample of low-income Latinas. NCT04397744. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We assessed the short-term effects of a community-based intervention for Hispanic men to encourage informed decision making (IDM) about prostate cancer screening with prostate specific antigen (PSA). Methods: All senior social and housing centers in El Paso, TX were randomized to intervention, a group-based Spanish language educational program facilitated by promotores (12 centers; 161 men) [I's], or to control, promotores-facilitated diabetes video and discussion (13 centers; 160 men) [C's]. Results: Participants had low levels of schooling and baseline knowledge; 44% reported previous PSA testing. At post-test, the I's made large knowledge gains, increased their understanding that experts disagree about testing, shifted toward more active decision making roles, were more likely to believe that it is important to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of screening and to anticipate potential screening outcomes in making a decision, and were less likely to consider the screening decision easy. The I's did not change in their screening intention or the belief that choosing not to be screened could be a responsible choice. Conclusions: A community-based intervention to support IDM for prostate cancer screening can increase knowledge and may promote more active involvement in decision making about prostate cancer screening. Such an approach can increase knowledge and may promote more active involvement in decision making about prostate cancer screening. Practice implications: It is feasible to develop and implement a community-based intervention program to promote IDM for prostate cancer screening. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]