The history of mammogram prior to Living Room Visit will be evaluated in participants aged 40 or older due to current screening recommendations.

Participants completed 25-item questionnaires requiring True/False responses to evaluate breast health knowledge at Baseline and 3-Month Contact. True/False responses were recoded as being correct or incorrect, resulting in 25 unique 2x2 contingency tables of paired, dichotomous survey responses. Reported here are the frequencies of paired subject responses for each question on the Baseline and 3-Month Contact questionnaires.

Questions are listed below as Row Titles.

Abbreviations to note include:

Question: Q Mammography, Mammogram: MAM Breast cancer: BC True/False: T/F

Latina women, aged 18 years or older at consent (i.e., baseline), completing both the Baseline and 3-month Contact surveys following the breast health education program. This outcome is reported only for subjects completing the 3-month Contact survey.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 2 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 3 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 4 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 5 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 6 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 7 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 8 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 9 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 10 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 11 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 12 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 13 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 14 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 15 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 16 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 17 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 18 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 19 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 20 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 21 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 22 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 23 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 24 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.

Patients gave True/False responses to Question 25 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.

This outcome measure for Q25 was tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5% in the analyses of 25 questions.