Table 1.

Characteristics of health promotion intervention studies and summary of findings

First author & year	Country	Setting	Study population	Study design and sample size	Intervention and its descriptions	Outcome (Intervention vs. control, if applicable)
Abood et al. (2005)19	USA	Population based	Women	Nonequivalent experimental design; 1104	Phone calls and framed messages for intervention groups (Two female staff members on site who received all phone inquiries at the experimental public health unit and delivered the scripted loss-framed message telephonically.)	Odds ratio [OR] = 1.914, χ2 = 7.48 [95%CI 1.20–3.05], P = 0.0063
Rao et al. (2005)24	India	Community based	Rural women	Non-randomized intervention study; 360	Health education on breast cancer and BSE by trained health workers.	Self-examination of the breast increased from 0 to 93% (z = −15.807; P< 0.001)
Fry et al. (2005)34	USA	School based	Female students	Randomized education intervention study; 197	90 min intervention consisted of an essay, lecture, video portraying of breast cancer, group discussions, self-test and instructions on performing BSEs for a total of 48 h.	BSE a part of a regular routine (r = 0.57, P = 0.001)
Consedine et al. (2007)21	USA	Community based	Black and white women	Intervention study; 5144	Telephone intervention, education and training	Intervention vs. Control = 65.6% vs. 48.9%
Vernon et al. (2008)50	USA	Population based	women veterans	RCT; 184	A folder containing (1) a set of four educational booklets, (2) a letter for the woman to discuss mammography with health-care provider, and (3) a pamphlet about mammography screening through the Veterans Administration	No significant difference between intervention group and control group (P>0.05)
Gupta et al. (2009)35	India	Community based	Women	Pre-post Intervention study; 1000	Lecture, pamphlets, flip charts and demonstration of the five step method of BSE using audio-visual aids were administrated.	90.7% practiced (BSE) compared with 0% pre-test. and over all 53% vs. 43% of BSE practice
Nguyen et.al. (2009)25	USA	population based	Vietnamese-American women	RCT; 1100	The intervention group received two LHW educational sessions and two telephone calls. Both groups received targeted Media education.	Mammography use OR = 3.14 (95% CI = 1.98, 5.01) P < 0.001)
Kim et al. (2009)30	USA	Community based	Korean women	Quasi-experimental study; 300	Stage model based 45-min interactive breast cancer early screening health education session (GO EARLY) in mammography use.	No statistically significant intervention effect was noted on upward shift in stage of readiness for mammography use post intervention (P > 0.05)
Lindberg et al. (2009)20	USA	Health care setting	Women	RCT, 616	A 30–45 min individual counseling session featuring BSE instruction, training and practice with silicon models, identification of barriers to BSE, and problem-solving. This intervention was followed by two brief follow-up telephone calls.	BSE intervention (0–59% vs. 0–12.2%, P< 0.001)
Akhtar et al. (2010)26	Saudi Arabia	Health care setting	Arabic women	Quasi-experimental study; 1766	Breast screening program/campaigns via media channels, newspapers, exhibitions, lectures, information stalls, and posters. Awareness with interactive educational sessions.	18% of the total population participated in mammogram screening, with high recall rate (31.6 %)
Arshad et al. (2011)37	USA	Community based	American-Arabic women	Quasi-experimental study; 100	Educational interventions are delivered by community health workers at their home together with their adult female family members	BSE and mammogram use regardless of their language preference [OR = 0.15; 95% CI = 0.04–0.50; (OR = 0.15; 95% CI = 0.04, 0.54, P < 0.05)]
Cohen et al. (2010)38	Israel	Community based	Israeli-Arabic Women	Quazi experimental controlled before and after design; 67	A religious and cultural promoter’s involved training was given for six months by trained social worker on culture-specific barriers and misconceptions.	Intervention group vs. control group (48 % vs. 12.5%)
Bowen et al. (2011)23	USA	Population- based	women	RCT; 1354	Telephone calls.; Web/Internet intervention	Mammography in the last year intervention (69–82% vs. 71% as it is) and BSE Intervention (40–62% vs. 41–41%)
Engelman et al. (2011)22	USA	Health care setting	Women	RCT, N = 290	One to one education delivered in person by community health workers. Follow-up telephone calls.	Intervention group vs. control (25–30% vs. 15% to no change )
Hajian et al. (2011)31	Iran	Community based	Women	RCT; 100	HBM constructs based intervention (well-known psychological theories health education for breast cancer screening)	Intervention group vs. control [41–82%; vs. 31–62%; P = 0.021 and (x2= 5.6, P = 0.12)]
Ayash et al. (2011)27	USA	Community based	Women	Quasi-experimental study; 597	Workshops, community-based participatory approach and cultural responsiveness trainings sticking to individual level risks in Arabic language.	68% reported increased understanding of cancer screening, and 29% increase in screening
Dallo et al. (2011)38	USA	Health care setting	Women	Quasi-experimental study, 866	Bilingual educational intervention along with physical examination and screening	Cancer knowledge increased after intervention compared with prior to the intervention (P<0.05)
Eskandari-Torbaghan et al. (2014)28	Iran	University	Female Staffs	Randomized controlled trial; 130	Educational intervention and training based on health belief model (perceived susceptibility, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers as well as in practice)	Behavior scores increased by 18% [1.21 (±2.54) vs. 0.15(±2.94), P < 0.05]
Khalili et al. (2014)39	Iran	Community based	Women	Quasi experimental study, 144	Three sessions of training were held for case group and every session contained 1 h training.	Cases to control mean score of knowledge improved (11.7–21.81; P < 0.001)
Rahman et al. (2014)33	USA	Religious institutions	Korean Americans Women couple	RCT; 428	The intervention group slogan was ‘Healthy Family, Healthy Wife’ and the control group slogan was ‘Healthy Family, Healthy Diet’ emphasize on breast screening or healthy diet. The intervention group 30-minute Korean-language DVD on breast screening, group discussion immediately after the video; couple to complete a discussion activity at home	There is no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). Both intervention groups have significantly increased (P<0.05)
Taymoori, et al. (2015)32	Iran	Community based	Iranian women	RCT; 184	Health belief model and theory of planned behavior based health education	A significant intervention effect was identified (P < 0.0001)
Tuzcu et al. (2016)29	Turkey	Community based	Migrant women	Quasi-experimental study; 200	Health behavior models based training in BSE and mammography was displayed visually in the film. TRAINING: demonstrated proper palpation using the breast model. Two different reminder cards BSE card, breast cancer screening methods card) and an invitation card and demonstrated proper palpation using the breast model	Increased the rate of BSE 0.8 times and the rate of mammography 0.7 times. An increase of each unit in health motivation increased the rate of clinical breast examination 1.3 times and the rate of mammography 1.5 times