Cardarelli 2011.

Methods	Study design: controlled before‐after study Sampling frame: women age 40 and older residing in 2 specific Dallas neighborhoods with no personal history of breast cancer Sampling method: random; multiple modalities including door‐to‐door recruitment, referrals, and flyers Description of the community coalition: The Dallas Cancer Disparities Community Research Coalition was created by academic investigators and community partners in 2007 to address disparities in cancer mortality in the South Dallas area. 10 diverse community members on a Community Advisory Board led the coalition
Participants	Communities: Dallas, Texas Country: USA Ages included in assessment: 40+ (n = 119) Reasons provided for selection of intervention community: Residents of South Dallas experience higher breast cancer mortality compared with county averages Intervention community (population size): Frazier Courts neighborhood of South Dallas (not provided) Comparison community (population size): unnamed neighborhood of West Dallas (not provided)
Interventions	Name of intervention: not provided, but based on the Forsyth County Cancer Screening Project intervention Theory: Health Belief Model, Social Cognitive Theory Aim: to assess the efficacy of an intervention designed to promote increased knowledge about the importance of early detection for reducing breast cancer mortality and for increasing uptake of breast cancer screening practices Description of costs and resources: not provided Components of the intervention: a series of eight 1.5‐hour breast health education classes delivered by volunteers and a mobile mammography unit brought to the neighborhood during the intervention period Start date: not provided Duration: 8 weeks
Outcomes	Outcomes and measures (follow‐up months): Breast self examination (4 months) Clinical breast examination (4 months) Mammogram (4 months) Years of pre and post measurements: not provided
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	No randomization
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	No allocation concealment
Baseline outcome measurement similar	Unclear risk	Baseline rates of self examination not presented; baseline rates of clinical examination differed and baseline rates of mammography did not differ
Baseline characteristics similar	Unclear risk	Participant characteristics appear similar, but intervention was not randomly assigned
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Rates of loss to follow‐up similar for intervention and control groups, but relatively high (22%)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding
Protection against contamination	Unclear risk	Distinct Dallas communities (but still in the same city) were chosen to minimize contamination
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Main outcome measures reported