Integrating Multiple Community Perspectives in Intervention Development

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 engageme...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Health education research 2019-08, Vol.34 (4), p.357-371
Main Authors: Molina, Yamil, Watson, Karriem S, San Miguel, Liliana G, Aguirre, Karen, Hernandez-Flores, Mariana, Giraldo, Tatiana B, Lucio, Araceli, Coronado, Nora, Matthews, Phoenix A
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Access to Health Care
Adult
Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis
Cancer
Community Involvement
Community Participation
Cultural Influences
Female
Females
Focus Groups
Guideline Adherence
Health Behavior
Hispanic Americans
Humans
Intervention
Mass Screening
Original
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Patient Compliance
Program Development
Recruitment
Screening Tests
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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 [right arrow] access to free services). Some recommendations varied, but complementary integration was possible (e.g. location versus recruitment [right arrow] 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 [right arrow] personalized information and evidence about all screening options).
ISSN:0268-1153
1465-3648
DOI:10.1093/her/cyz018