Group Versus Individual Educational Sessions With a Promotora and Hispanic/Latina Women's Satisfaction With Care in the Screening Mammography Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE. We studied Hispanic/Latina women's satisfaction with care after receiving group or individual educational sessions (vs standard of care) with a promotora before screening mammography. A promotora is a culturally appropriate community health worker for the Hispanic/Latino community. Promotoras have been shown to increase screening mammography rates and follow-up of abnormal mammograms in this population. However, a promotora's impact on elements of patient care and patient satisfaction remains poorly described. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Hispanic/Latina women 40-64 years old were randomized to one of three groups: the control group (standard-of-care well woman screening), an individual educational session with a promotora followed by well woman screening with access to the promotora, or a group educational session followed by well woman screening with access to the promotora. Access to the promotora included the opportunity to ask questions during well woman screening and a follow-up telephone call to discuss results and follow-up if necessary. Participants completed a premammography survey that assessed demographics and health literacy and a postmammography survey that assessed satisfaction with care, interpersonal processes of care, and satisfaction with the promotora. We used multivariable linear regression models and two-sample t tests for continuous outcome measures and a multivariable logistic regression model for dichotomized outcomes. RESULTS. Of the 100 women enrolled in the study, 94 completed well woman screening and the postmammography survey. Hispanic/Latina women with access to the promotora providing educational sessions in either the group (mean satisfaction with care score, 78.1) or individual (mean satisfaction with care score, 78.8) setting reported higher satisfaction with care than those receiving the standard of care (mean satisfaction with care score, 74.9) (p < 0.05). The odds of highly compassionate care in women receiving educational sessions was increased and was particularly strong for those receiving individual educational sessions compared with standard of care (odds ratio, 4.78 [95% CI, 1.51-15.13]). We found that increased satisfaction with the promotora was significantly associated with increased satisfaction with care but that group versus individual educational sessions did not significantly impact satisfaction with the promotora. CONCLUSION. Our study findings have important implications as patient navigators and shared decision making become integral to cancer screening. Group educational sessions may offer a method to decrease the time and expense of providing educational services in the cancer screening setting. However, the overall more positive interpersonal experiences suggested in the individual setting suggest that a larger study is warranted to better understand differences between group and individual educational settings.

[1]  David Dutwin,et al.  Patient Perspectives of Clinical Care and Patient Navigation in Follow-up of Abnormal Mammography , 2011, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[2]  U. Sarkar,et al.  Validation of Self-Reported Health Literacy Questions Among Diverse English and Spanish-Speaking Populations , 2010, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[3]  Michael A. Yonas,et al.  Aligning the Goals of Community-Engaged Research: Why and How Academic Health Centers Can Successfully Engage With Communities to Improve Health , 2012, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[4]  Dean Schillinger,et al.  Physician language ability and cultural competence , 2004, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[5]  Jeffrey M. Ashburner,et al.  Satisfaction With Health Care Among Patients Navigated for Preventive Cancer Screening , 2018, Journal of patient experience.

[6]  Mph Dr. Monica E. Peek MD,et al.  Disparities in screening mammography , 2007, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[7]  H. Selker,et al.  From community engagement, to community-engaged research, to broadly engaged team science , 2017, Journal of Clinical and Translational Science.

[8]  P. Jean-Pierre,et al.  Psychometric development and reliability analysis of a patient satisfaction with interpersonal relationship with navigator measure: a multi‐site patient navigation research program study , 2012, Psycho-oncology.

[9]  Gary Tang,et al.  Challenges and Facilitating Factors in Sustaining Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships: Lessons Learned from the Detroit, New York City and Seattle Urban Research Centers , 2006, Journal of Urban Health.

[10]  Jeffrey M. Ashburner,et al.  Patient navigation to improve follow-up of abnormal mammograms among disadvantaged women. , 2015, Journal of women's health.

[11]  E. Boyko,et al.  Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. , 2004, Family medicine.

[12]  S. Hendren,et al.  Understanding the Processes of Patient Navigation to Reduce Disparities in Cancer Care: Perspectives of Trained Navigators from the Field , 2011, Journal of Cancer Education.

[13]  J. Scheel,et al.  Multilevel Intervention Raises Latina Participation in Mammography Screening: Findings from ¡Fortaleza Latina! , 2016, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[14]  Meredith Minkler,et al.  Community-Based Participatory Research for Health , 2002 .

[15]  J. Ferrante,et al.  The Effect of Patient Navigation on Time to Diagnosis, Anxiety, and Satisfaction in Urban Minority Women with Abnormal Mammograms: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2007, Journal of Urban Health.

[16]  John S. Luque,et al.  Do Community Health Worker Interventions Improve Rates of Screening Mammography in the United States? A Systematic Review , 2011, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[17]  P. Jean-Pierre,et al.  Structural and reliability analysis of a patient satisfaction with cancer‐related care measure , 2011, Cancer.

[18]  M. Peek,et al.  Disparities in screening mammography , 2004 .

[19]  Anita L Stewart,et al.  Interpersonal processes of care survey: patient-reported measures for diverse groups. , 2007, Health services research.

[20]  Svetlana K. Eden,et al.  Health communication, self-care, and treatment satisfaction among low-income diabetes patients in a public health setting. , 2015, Patient education and counseling.

[21]  H. Freeman Patient navigation: a community centered approach to reducing cancer mortality. , 2006, Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education.

[22]  P. Jean-Pierre,et al.  Cross‐cultural validation of a Patient Satisfaction with Interpersonal Relationship with Navigator measure: a multi‐site patient navigation research study , 2012, Psycho-oncology.

[23]  Siamak Noorbaloochi,et al.  Validation of Screening Questions for Limited Health Literacy in a Large VA Outpatient Population , 2008, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[24]  R. Dittus,et al.  A Community-Academic Partnership to Reduce Health Care Disparities in Diagnostic Imaging. , 2019, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[25]  Maria E Fernandez,et al.  Effectiveness of Cultivando la Salud: a breast and cervical cancer screening promotion program for low-income Hispanic women. , 2009, American journal of public health.

[26]  G. Bernard,et al.  Community Engagement Studios: A Structured Approach to Obtaining Meaningful Input From Stakeholders to Inform Research , 2015, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[27]  A. Stewart,et al.  Interpersonal processes of care in diverse populations. , 1999, The Milbank quarterly.

[28]  Anna María Nápoles,et al.  Interpersonal processes of care and patient satisfaction: do associations differ by race, ethnicity, and language? , 2009, Health services research.

[29]  A. Ahmed,et al.  Racial Disparities in Screening Mammography in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2017, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[30]  C. Wilkins,et al.  Community Representatives’ Involvement in Clinical and Translational Science Awardee Activities , 2013, Clinical and translational science.

[31]  Do Better-Rated Navigators Improve Patient Satisfaction with Cancer-Related Care? , 2013, Journal of Cancer Education.

[32]  V. Escribà-Agüir,et al.  Effectiveness of patient-targeted interventions to promote cancer screening among ethnic minorities: A systematic review. , 2016, Cancer Epidemiology.

[33]  Jesse J. Plascak,et al.  Effects of Patient Navigation on Patient Satisfaction Outcomes , 2014, Journal of Cancer Education.

[34]  L. Jones,et al.  The role of patient navigators in eliminating health disparities , 2011, Cancer.

[35]  P. Jean-Pierre,et al.  Psychometric validation and reliability analysis of a Spanish version of the patient satisfaction with cancer-related care measure: a patient navigation research program study , 2012, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[36]  B. Israel,et al.  Community-based participatory research: policy recommendations for promoting a partnership approach in health research. , 2001, Education for health.