A Bodiya1, D Vorias, H A Dickson. 1. Department of Family Practice, Providence Hospital, Southfield, Mich., USA. abodiya@netscape.net
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Mammography is an important screening tool for the early detection of breast cancer. However, mammogram screening rates are low, despite interventions to improve them. We investigated two methods to improve mammogram screening and compared mammogram rates among women who received these interventions to mammogram screening rates in a control group. We also investigated the costs involved in these interventions. METHODS: We studied mammogram screening rates of three randomized groups of women ages 50 and older from the Deighton Family Practice Center in Southfield, Mich. All women had had a mammogram 1 year previously and were due for another mammogram. Our control group (n = 110) received no intervention. The second group of women (n = 102) received a reminder letter from the radiology department. The third group (n = 86) received a reminder letter followed by a phone call from the physician's office staff if no mammogram had been obtained within 8 weeks after the due date for the mammogram. All three groups were monitored for 14 weeks after the due date to determine mammogram screening rates in each group. RESULTS: A mammogram was obtained by 33% of women in group 1, 37% of women in group 2, and 57% of women in group 3. The mammogram screening rate of the third group was significantly greater than in the first two groups. In the third group, the additional cost added by the phone call intervention was $9 per mammogram obtained. CONCLUSION:Mammogram screening rates are increased when patients are contacted by both a reminder letter and a phone call.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Mammography is an important screening tool for the early detection of breast cancer. However, mammogram screening rates are low, despite interventions to improve them. We investigated two methods to improve mammogram screening and compared mammogram rates among women who received these interventions to mammogram screening rates in a control group. We also investigated the costs involved in these interventions. METHODS: We studied mammogram screening rates of three randomized groups of women ages 50 and older from the Deighton Family Practice Center in Southfield, Mich. All women had had a mammogram 1 year previously and were due for another mammogram. Our control group (n = 110) received no intervention. The second group of women (n = 102) received a reminder letter from the radiology department. The third group (n = 86) received a reminder letter followed by a phone call from the physician's office staff if no mammogram had been obtained within 8 weeks after the due date for the mammogram. All three groups were monitored for 14 weeks after the due date to determine mammogram screening rates in each group. RESULTS: A mammogram was obtained by 33% of women in group 1, 37% of women in group 2, and 57% of women in group 3. The mammogram screening rate of the third group was significantly greater than in the first two groups. In the third group, the additional cost added by the phone call intervention was $9 per mammogram obtained. CONCLUSION: Mammogram screening rates are increased when patients are contacted by both a reminder letter and a phone call.
Authors: Cassidy Clarity; Gato Gourley; Courtney Lyles; Sara Ackerman; Margaret A Handley; Dean Schillinger; Urmimala Sarkar; Joseph Conigliaro Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Elisabeth F Beaber; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Marilyn M Schapira; Anne Marie McCarthy; Christopher I Li; Sally D Herschorn; Constance D Lehman; Karen J Wernli; William E Barlow Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Mary E Costanza; Roger Luckmann; Mary Jo White; Milagros C Rosal; Caroline Cranos; George Reed; Robin Clark; Susan Sama; Robert Yood Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-06-03 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Ignacio Párraga-Martínez; Joseba Rabanales-Sotos; Fernando Lago-Deibe; Juan M Téllez-Lapeira; Francisco Escobar-Rabadán; Alejandro Villena-Ferrer; Mariano Blasco-Valle; José M Ferreras-Amez; Susana Morena-Rayo; José M del Campo-del Campo; Maria Candelaria Ayuso-Raya; José J Pérez-Pascual Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2015-01-19 Impact factor: 2.298