Adapting Community Educational Programs During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparing the Feasibility and Efficacy of a Lung Cancer Screening Educational Intervention by Mode of Delivery.

Few eligible patients receive lung cancer screening. We developed the Lung AIR (awareness, information, and resources) intervention to increase community education regarding lung cancer screening. The intervention was designed as an in-person group intervention; however, the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated adapting the mode of delivery. In this study we examined intervention feasibility and efficacy overall and by mode of delivery (in-person group vs. one-on-one phone) to understand the impact of adapting community outreach and engagement strategies. Feasibility was examined through participant demographics. Efficacy was measured through pre/post knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about lung cancer screening, and intention to complete screening. We reached N = 292 participants. Forty percent had a household income below $35,000, 58% had a high school degree or less, 40% were Hispanic, 57% were Black, and 84% reported current or past smoking. One-on-one phone sessions reached participants who were older, had lower incomes, more current smoking, smoked for more years, more cigarettes per day, lower pre-intervention lung cancer screening knowledge, and higher pre-intervention fear and worry. Overall pre/post test scores show significant increases in knowledge, salience, and coherence, and reduced fear and worry. Participants in the one-on-one phone sessions had significantly higher increases in salience and coherence and intention to complete screening compared to participants in the in-person group sessions. The Lung AIR intervention is a feasible and effective community-based educational intervention for lung cancer screening. Findings point to differences in reach and efficacy of the community-based intervention by mode of delivery.

Esperanza y Vida: a culturally and linguistically customized breast and cervical education program for diverse Latinas at three different United States sites.

Breast cancer is the most common cause of cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among Latinas in the United States. In addition, Latinas experience a disproportionate burden of cervical cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality compared with non-Hispanic White women. Lower use of breast and cervical cancer screening services may contribute to these disparities. To address the underutilization of breast and cervical cancer screening among diverse subgroups of Latinas, a peer-led education program called Esperanza y Vida ("Hope and Life") was developed and administered at 3 sites (2 in New York and 1 in Arkansas). Immigrant Latina women and their partners were educated about the importance of breast and cervical cancer screening, with the goals of increasing their knowledge about these cancers and their screening behavior. An analysis of the intervention's findings at baseline among female participants demonstrated significant sociodemographic, interpersonal, cultural, health care system, and program variability in 3 distinct geographic regions in the United States. These data indicate the need for and feasibility of customizing cancer outreach and educational programs for diverse Latina subgroups living in various U.S. regions, with implications for informing the expansion and replication of the program in other regions of the country.

Esperanza y Vida: training lay health advisors and cancer survivors to promote breast and cervical cancer screening in Latinas.

The use of lay health advisors (LHAs) to promote community-based health education programs is well documented and is considered an effective way to reach underserved communities. Esperanza y Vida (Hope & Life) is an educational outreach program to increase breast and cervical cancer screening for diverse Latinas. It incorporates Latino LHAs (men and women) and cancer survivor role models, sobrevivientes, in the program delivery. An interactive training program, conducted by bilingual staff across three sites (Little Rock, Arkansas; Buffalo, New York and New York City) included 74 sobrevivientes and LHAs who were recruited and trained. All training attendees completed an initial application assessing socio-demographics, experience and availability as well as, true/false surveys at the beginning (pre-) and end of the training (post-) measuring knowledge levels of breast and cervical cancer health. Data analysis indicated a significant increase of both breast and cervical cancer knowledge for attendees trained as LHAs (pre = 60%; post = 80%; p = 0.000), whereas sobrevivientes had a higher baseline knowledge of breast health (74%), and therefore did not show a significant increase following training (79%). However, sobrevivientes did display a significant increase in cervical cancer knowledge (p = 0.003). These findings demonstrate the impact of training and how LHAs may be recruited at different levels of knowledge and experience and be successfully trained in key program elements. Moreover, results indicate that sobrevivientes may be impacted differently, or require variations in training approaches. This information can be useful in developing and customizing curriculum for future lay health training programs.