Behavioral and psychological impact of returning breast density results to Latinas: study protocol for a randomized clinical trial

Bhavika K Patel, Jennifer L Ridgeway, Karthik Ghosh, Deborah J Rhodes, Bijan Borah, Sarah Jenkins, Vera J Suman, Aaron Norman, Matt Jewett, Davinder Singh, Celine M Vachon, Carmen Radecki Breitkopf, Bhavika K Patel, Jennifer L Ridgeway, Karthik Ghosh, Deborah J Rhodes, Bijan Borah, Sarah Jenkins, Vera J Suman, Aaron Norman, Matt Jewett, Davinder Singh, Celine M Vachon, Carmen Radecki Breitkopf

Abstract

Background: Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer mortality among Latinas. As more is learned about the association between mammographic breast density (MBD) and breast cancer risk, a number of U.S. states adopted legislation and now a federal law mandates written notification of MBD along with mammogram results. These notifications vary in content and readability, though, which may limit their effectiveness and create confusion or concern, especially among women with low health literacy or barriers to screening. The purpose of this study is to determine whether educational enhancement of MBD notification results in increased knowledge, decreased anxiety, and adherence to continued mammography screening among Latina women in a limited-resources setting.

Methods: Latinas LEarning About Density (LLEAD) is a randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing the impact of three notification approaches on behavioral and psychological outcomes in Latina women. Approximately 2000 Latinas undergoing screening mammography in a safety-net community clinic will be randomized 1:1:1 to mailed notification (usual care); mailed notification plus written educational materials (enhanced); or mailed notification, written educational materials, plus verbal explanation by a promotora (interpersonal). The educational materials and verbal explanations are available in Spanish or English. Mechanisms through which written or verbal information influences future screening motivation and behavior will be examined, as well as moderating factors such as depression and worry about breast cancer, which have been linked to diagnostic delays among Latinas. The study includes multiple psychological measures (anxiety, depression, knowledge about MBD, perceived risk of breast cancer, worry, self-efficacy) and behavioral outcomes (continued adherence to mammography). Measurement time points include enrollment, 2-4 weeks post-randomization, and 1 and 2 years post-randomization. Qualitative inquiry related to process and outcomes of the interpersonal arm and cost analysis related to its implementation will be undertaken to understand the intervention's delivery and transferability.

Discussion: Legislation mandating written MBD notification may have unintended consequences on behavioral and psychological outcomes, particularly among Latinas with limited health literacy and resources. This study has implications for cancer risk communication and will offer evidence on the potential of generalizable educational strategies for delivering information on breast density to Latinas in limited-resource settings.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02910986. Registered on 21 September 2016. Items from the WHO Trial Registration Data Set can be found in this protocol.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Breast density; Breast density legislation; Hispanic; Mammographic breast density (MBD); Mammography; Randomized clinical trial (RCT).

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram showing study groups, anticipated sample sizes, and assessment time points

References

    1. American Cancer Society . Cancer facts & figures for Hispanics/Latinos 2012–2014. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2012.
    1. Molina Y, Thompson B, Espinoza N, Ceballos R. Breast cancer interventions serving US-based Latinas: current approaches and directions. Women's Health. 2013;9(4):335–350. doi: 10.2217/WHE.13.30.
    1. Rhodes DJ, Radecki Breitkopf C, Ziegenfuss JY, Jenkins SM, Vachon CM. Awareness of breast density and its impact on breast cancer detection and risk. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(10):1143–1150. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.57.0325.
    1. Nazari SS, Mukherjee P. An overview of mammographic density and its association with breast cancer. Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) 2018;25(3):259–267. doi: 10.1007/s12282-018-0857-5.
    1. American Cancer Society . Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2013-2014. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc; 2013.
    1. Dense Breast Info. Legistlation and regulations - what is required?: ; [Available from: . Accessed 12 July 2019.
    1. Gunn CM, Battaglia TA, Paasche-Orlow MK, West AK, Kressin NR. Women's perceptions of dense breast notifications in a Massachusetts safety net hospital: "So what is that supposed to mean?". Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(6):1123–1129. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.01.017.
    1. Gunn CM, Kressin NR, Cooper K, Marturano C, Freund KM, Battaglia TA. Primary care provider experience with breast density legislation in Massachusetts. J Women's Health (Larchmt) 2018;27(5):615–622. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2017.6539.
    1. Gunn CM, Fitzpatrick A, Waugh S, Carrera M, Kressin NR, Paasche-Orlow MK, et al. A qualitative study of Spanish-speakers' experience with dense breast notifications in a Massachusetts safety-net hospital. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(2):198–205. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4709-y.
    1. Pacsi-Sepulveda AL, Shelton RC, Rodriguez CB, Coq AT, Tehranifar P. "You probably can't feel as safe as normal women": Hispanic women's reactions to breast density notification. Cancer. 2019;125(12):2049–2056. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32002.
    1. Trinh L, Ikeda DM, Miyake KK, Trinh J, Lee KK, Dave H, et al. Patient awareness of breast density and interest in supplemental screening tests: comparison of an academic facility and a county hospital. J Am Coll Radiol. 2015;12(3):249–255. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.10.027.
    1. U.S. Health Resources & Services Administration. Federally Qualified Health Centers: eligibility 2018 [updated May 2018. Available from: . Accessed 11 June 2019
    1. Livaudais JC, Coronado GD, Espinoza N, Islas I, Ibarra G, Thompson B. Educating Hispanic women about breast cancer prevention: evaluation of a home-based promotora-led intervention. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2010;19(11):2049–2056. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2009.1733.
    1. Nuno T, Martinez ME, Harris R, Garcia F. A Promotora-administered group education intervention to promote breast and cervical cancer screening in a rural community along the U.S.-Mexico border: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer Causes Control. 2011;22(3):367–374. doi: 10.1007/s10552-010-9705-4.
    1. Ayala GX, Vaz L, Earp JA, Elder JP, Cherrington A. Outcome effectiveness of the lay health advisor model among Latinos in the United States: an examination by role. Health Educ Res. 2010;25(5):815–840. doi: 10.1093/her/cyq035.
    1. WestRasmus EK, Pineda-Reyes F, Tamez M, Westfall JM. Promotores de salud and community health workers: an annotated bibliography. Fam Commun Health. 2012;35(2):172–182. doi: 10.1097/FCH.0b013e31824991d2.
    1. Spalluto Lucy B., Audet Carolyn M., Murry Velma McBride, Barajas Claudia P., Beard Katina R., Campbell Thoris T., Thomas Debbie, Sanderson Maureen, Yu Chang, Dittus Robert S., Roumie Christianne L., Wilkins Consuelo H., Shrubsole Martha J. 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. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2019;213(5):1029–1036. doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21516.
    1. Viswanathan M, Kraschnewski JL, Nishikawa B, Morgan LC, Honeycutt AA, Thieda P, et al. Outcomes and costs of community health worker interventions: a systematic review. Med Care. 2010;48(9):792–808. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181e35b51.
    1. Fisher WA, Fisher JD, Harman J. The information-motivation-behavioraI skills model: A general social psychological approach to understanding and promoting health behavior. Social psychological foundations of health and illness. Blackwell series in health psychology and behavioral medicine. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2003. p. 82–106.
    1. Allen JD, Shelton RC, Harden E, Goldman RE. Follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms among low-income ethnically diverse women: findings from a qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;72(2):283–292. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.03.024.
    1. Ashing-Giwa KT, Gonzalez P, Lim JW, Chung C, Paz B, Somlo G, et al. Diagnostic and therapeutic delays among a multiethnic sample of breast and cervical cancer survivors. Cancer. 2010;116(13):3195–3204. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25060.
    1. Li R, Gilliland FD, Baumgartner KB, Samet J. Family history and risk of breast cancer in Hispanic and non-Hispanic women: the New Mexico Women's Health Study. Cancer Causes Control. 2001;12(8):747–753. doi: 10.1023/A:1011285205870.
    1. Spielberger CD. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Adults, manual. Redwood City: Mind Garden; 1983.
    1. Novy DM, Nelson DV, Smith KG, Rogers PA, Rowzee RD. Psychometric comparability of the English- and Spanish-language versions of the State Trait Anxiety Inventory. Hisp J Behav Sci. 1995;17(2):209–224. doi: 10.1177/07399863950172005.
    1. Obadina ET, Dubenske LL, McDowell HE, Atwood AK, Mayer DK, Woods RW, et al. Online support: Impact on anxiety in women who experience an abnormal screening mammogram. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) 2014;23(6):743–748. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.08.002.
    1. Fernandez-Feito A, Lana A, Baldonedo-Cernuda R, Mosteiro-Diaz MP. A brief nursing intervention reduces anxiety before breast cancer screening mammography. Psicothema. 2015;27(2):128–133.
    1. Breitkopf CR, Dawson L, Grady JJ, Breitkopf DM, Nelson-Becker C, Snyder RR. Intervention to improve follow-up for abnormal Papanicolaou tests: a randomized clinical trial. Health Psychol. 2014;33(4):307–316. doi: 10.1037/a0032722.
    1. Chew LD, Griffin JM, Partin MR, Noorbaloochi S, Grill JP, Snyder A, et al. Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(5):561–566. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0520-5.
    1. Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ. Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med. 2004;36(8):588–594.
    1. Sarkar U, Schillinger D, Lopez A, Sudore R. Validation of self-reported health literacy questions among diverse English and Spanish-speaking populations. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(3):265–271. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1552-1.
    1. Ramirez AS. Fatalism and cancer risk knowledge among a sample of highly acculturated Latinas. J Cancer Educ. 2014;29:50–55. doi: 10.1007/s13187-013-0541-6.
    1. Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, Jepson C, Brody D, Boyce A. Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. Health Psychol. 1991;10(4):259–267. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.10.4.259.
    1. Jensen JD, Bernat JK, Davis LA, Yale R. Dispositional cancer worry: convergent, divergent, and predictive validity of existing scales. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2010;28(5):470–489. doi: 10.1080/07347332.2010.498459.
    1. Gurmankin Levy A, Shea J, Williams SV, Quistberg A, Armstrong K. Measuring perceptions of breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15(10):1893–1898. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0482.
    1. Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, Gershon R, Cook K, Reeve B, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S3–S11. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55.
    1. Drukteinis JS, Mooney BP, Flowers CI, Gatenby RA. Beyond mammography: new frontiers in breast cancer screening. Am J Med. 2013;126(6):472–479. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.11.025.
    1. Jones BA, Dailey A, Calvocoressi L, Reams K, Kasl SV, Lee C, et al. Inadequate follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms: findings from the race differences in screening mammography process study (United States) Cancer Causes Control. 2005;16(7):809–821. doi: 10.1007/s10552-005-2905-7.
    1. Richards MA, Westcombe AM, Love SB, Littlejohns P, Ramirez AJ. Influence of delay on survival in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review. Lancet. 1999;353(9159):1119–1126. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)02143-1.
    1. Creswell JW, Fetters MD, Plano Clark VL. Mixed methods intervention trials. In: Andrew S, Halcomb EJ, editors. Mixed Methods Research for Nursing and the Health Sciences. 1. Ames: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. pp. 161–180.
    1. O'Cathain A, Thomas K J, Drabble S J, Rudolph A, Hewison J. What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review. BMJ Open. 2013;3(6):e002889. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002889.
    1. Sandelowski M. Focus on qualitative methods: using qualitative methods in intervention studies. Res Nurs Health. 1996;19(4):359–364. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199608)19:4<359::AID-NUR9>;2-H.
    1. Pope C, Mays N. editors. Qualitative Research in Health Care. 3rd ed. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2006.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
    1. Morse JM. Designing qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994. pp. 220–235.
    1. Bentley JP. The influence of risk and monetary payment on the research participation decision making process. J Med Ethics. 2004;30(3):293–298. doi: 10.1136/jme.2002.001594.
    1. Breitkopf CR, Loza M, Vincent K, Moench T, Stanberry LR, Rosenthal SL. Perceptions of reimbursement for clinical trial participation. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011;6(3):31–38. doi: 10.1525/jer.2011.6.3.31.
    1. Dickert N, Grady C. What's the price of a research subject? Approaches to payment for research participation. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(3):198–203. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199907153410312.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe