Minority Health and Health Equity Archive

Permanent URI for this collectionhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/21769

Welcome to the Minority Health and Health Equity Archive (MHHEA), an electronic archive for digital resource materials in the fields of minority health and health disparities research and policy. It is offered as a no-charge resource to the public, academic scholars and health science researchers interested in the elimination of racial and ethnic health disparities.

Browse

Author: search.filters.author.Byers, TimSubject: search.filters.subject.Centers for Disease Control

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Church-based breast cancer screening education: impact of two approaches on Latinas enrolled in public and private health insurance plans.
    (2007) Sauaia, Angela; Min, Sung-joon; Lack, David; Apodaca, Cecilia; Osuna, Diego; Stowe, Angela; MGinnis, Gretchen F; Latts, Lisa M; Byers, Tim
    Introduction The Tepeyac Project is a church-based health promotion project that was conducted from 1999 through 2005 to increase breast cancer screening rates among Latinas in Colorado. Previous reports evaluated the project among Medicare and Medicaid enrollees in the state. In this report, we evaluate the program among enrollees in the state's five major insurance plans. Methods We compared the Tepeyac Project's two interventions: the Printed Intervention and the Promotora Intervention. In the first, we mailed culturally tailored education packages to 209 Colorado Catholic churches for their use. In the second, promotoras (peer counselors) in four Catholic churches delivered breast-health education messages personally. We compared biennial mammogram claims from the five insurance plans in the analysis at baseline (1998–1999) and during follow-up (2000–2001) for Latinas who had received the interventions. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) analysis to adjust rates for confounders. Results The mammogram rate for Latinas in the Printed Intervention remained the same from baseline to follow-up (58% [2979/5130] vs 58% [3338/5708]). In the Promotora Intervention, the rate was 59% (316/536) at baseline and 61% (359/590) at follow-up. Rates increased modestly over time and varied widely by insurance type. After adjusting for age, income, urban versus rural location, disability, and insurance type, we found that women exposed to the Promotora Intervention had a significantly higher increase in biennial mammograms than did women exposed to the Printed Intervention (GEE parameter estimate = .24 [±.11], P = .03). Conclusion For insured Latinas, personally delivering church-based education through peer counselors appears to be a better breast-health promotion method than mailing printed educational materials to churches.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The effect of two church-based interventions on breast cancer screening rates among Medicaid-insured Latinas.
    (2005) Welsh, Adrienne L; Sauaia, Angela; Jacobellis, Jillian; Min, Sung-joon; Byers, Tim
    NTRODUCTION: Latinas face disparities in cancer screening rates compared with non-Latina whites. The Tepeyac Project aims to reduce these disparities by using a church-based approach to increase breast cancer screening among Latinas in Colorado. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of two Tepeyac Project interventions on the mammogram rates of Latinas and non-Latina whites enrolled in the Medicaid fee-for-service program. METHODS: Two intervention groups were compared: 209 churches in Colorado that received educational printed materials in Spanish and English (the printed statewide intervention) and four churches in the Denver area that received personalized education from promotoras, or peer counselors (the promotora intervention), in addition to the printed statewide intervention. Biennial Medicaid mammogram claim rates in Colorado before the interventions (1998-1999) and after (2000-2001) were used to compare the effect of the interventions on mammogram use among Latinas and non-Latina whites aged 50 to 64 years who were enrolled in the Medicaid fee-for-service program. Adjusted rates were computed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Small, nonsignificant increases in screening were observed among Latinas exposed to the promotora intervention (from 25% at baseline to 30% at follow-up [P = .30]) as compared with 45% at baseline and 43% at follow-up for the printed statewide intervention (P = .27). Screening among non-Latina whites increased by 6% in the promotora intervention area (from 32% at baseline to 38% at follow-up [P = .40]) and by 3% in the printed statewide intervention (from 41% at baseline to 44% at follow-up [P = .02]). No significant disparities in breast cancer screening were detected between Latinas and non-Latina whites. After adjustment for the confounders by generalized estimating equations, the promotora intervention had a marginally greater impact than the printed statewide intervention in increasing mammogram use among Latinas (generalized estimating equation, P = .07). CONCLUSION: A personalized community-based education was only modestly effective in increasing breast cancer screening among Medicaid-insured Latinas. Education alone may not be the answer for this population. The barriers for these Medicaid enrollees must be investigated so that interventions can be tailored to address their needs.