Intentional Storytelling to Sustain Low-cost/Free Breast Cancer Services: A Latina Example of Community-driven Advocacy.

BACKGROUND: Community-based public health advocacy efforts are crucial to sustaining the low-cost/free breast cancer services that support underserved populations. OBJECTIVES: We introduce two ways in which narrative theory may be a useful tool for developing advocacy materials and provide an example, using a community-academic partnership to promote Latina breast health in Chicago, Illinois. METHODS: Community and academic partners 1) engaged 25 Spanish-speaking Latinas in an advocacy workshop, 2) leveraged narrative theory to develop multi-media advocacy materials, and 3) disseminated materials to policymakers. LESSONS LEARNED: Our project highlights 1) that narrative theory may be useful to describe how Latinas engage policy-makers in relation to their needs and cultural norms, 2) the importance of flexibility and offering community members multiple options to engage policymakers, and 3) the importance of leveraging partners' complementary strengths. CONCLUSIONS: Narrative theory may be a useful tool for developing advocacy materials in community-academic partnerships.

Comparing Different Interventions' Effects on Latinas' Screening Mammography Attainment and Participant-Driven Information Diffusion.

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.