Using Intervention Mapping as a Participatory Strategy

Abstract

Cervical cancer is preventable with treatment of precancerous lesions and treatable at early stages. Hispanics have higher rates of cervical cancer and lower rates of screening. Ayudando a las Mujeres con Informacción, Guía, y Amor para su Salud (AMIGAS) is an intervention to increase cervical cancer screening in U.S. women of Mexican origin. AMIGAS was developed with the participation of the community using intervention mapping (IM). Following the IM process, the authors completed a needs assessment, development of program objectives, selection of intervention methods and strategies, and program design. A benefit of IM is its linkage with community-based participatory research as it includes engagement of community members to identify and refine priority areas. The success of this strategy suggests it a useful tool for other populations. The resulting intervention program is currently being tested for efficacy and cost-effectiveness in three sites: El Paso, Texas; Houston, Texas; and Yakima, Washington.

Effectiveness of a nutrition education package in improving feeding practices, dietary adequacy and growth of infants and young children in rural Tanzania: rationale, design and methods of a cluster randomised trial

“…The intervention mapping framework integrates theory, empirical findings from the literature and information collected from the target population to develop culturally appropriate and theoretically sound interventions [29, 30]. The framework has been used successfully to develop health behaviour interventions [31, 32]. This study applied consecutively and iteratively the six steps of intervention mapping.…”

Increasing Cervical Cancer Screening Among US Hispanics/Latinas: A Qualitative Systematic Review

“…Eight interventions were based exclusively or partly in Texas [11, 51–54, 56, 67, 68, 70, 83, 91, 92], seven in California [11, 54, 63–65, 85, 87, 88, 93], six in Arizona [59–61, 73, 74, 77, 78, 84, 94], four in New York [57, 58, 80, 81, 83, 89, 90, 93], and two in Washington state [70–72]. Additional intervention sites included Colorado [86], New Mexico [11, 54], Arkansas [57, 58, 80, 81], Illinois [55], Virginia [69], Pennsylvania [66], Florida [62], Georgia [75, 76], and Alabama [79].…”

“…Thirteen of the interventions described one or more specific behavioral theories that informed the intervention; social cognitive or social learning theory (n=9) was the most commonly used [51–53, 57, 58, 63, 70–72, 75–78, 80, 81, 83, 91, 92]. Other theories included the health belief model (n=4) [51–53, 66, 70, 71, 79], the theory of reasoned action (n=2) [51–53, 70, 71], the transtheoretical stages of change model (n=1) [70, 71], diffusion of innovations (n=1) [51–53], social influence theory (n=1) [88], popular education (n=1) [75, 76], and adult education theory (n=1) [68].…”

“…Other theories included the health belief model (n=4) [51–53, 66, 70, 71, 79], the theory of reasoned action (n=2) [51–53, 70, 71], the transtheoretical stages of change model (n=1) [70, 71], diffusion of innovations (n=1) [51–53], social influence theory (n=1) [88], popular education (n=1) [75, 76], and adult education theory (n=1) [68]. In addition, eight studies described using conceptual frameworks and intervention development strategies either in conjunction with or independently of specific theoretical foundations [11, 54, 57, 58, 66, 70, 71, 73, 74, 79–82, 94], and six were based on existing interventions [55, 57, 58, 72–74, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83]. The frameworks described included community-based participatory research (CBPR) or community-based participatory action (n=7) [11, 54, 57, 58, 66, 70, 71, 73, 74, 80–82, 94], intervention mapping (n=3) [11, 54, 70, 71, 79], the PEN-3 Model (n=3) [57, 58, 79–82], and empowerment (n=1) [82].…”

“…Of the 32 interventions, 24 included the participation of at least one LHA (e.g., community outreach worker or promotora ), either as the sole intervention strategy [11, 54, 56–59, 62–66, 70, 71, 73–81, 94] or in combination with other strategies [51–53, 55, 60, 61, 67, 72, 82–84, 88, 91, 92]. The LHAs were cancer survivors [56–58, 80–82], members of churches [55, 60, 61, 88], and/or volunteer or paid community members who generally represented the target population [11, 51–54, 57–59, 62–67, 70–84, 91, 92, 94]. Responsibilities of LHAs across the different interventions included: recruiting eligible women [55, 60, 61, 63, 73, 74, 79, 82, 88, 94]; coordinating support services (e.g.…”