Literature DB >> 10498393

Interventions targeted toward patients to increase mammography use.

K R Yabroff1, J S Mandelblatt.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the effects of patient-based mammography screening strategies. We performed a meta-analysis and included United States studies that met the following criteria: (a) randomized or concurrent control design; (b) defined outcomes; and (c) data available for reanalysis. Interventions were classified as behavioral, cognitive, or sociological and further categorized by the type of control group (active versus usual care), number of interventions, and mode of intervention (interactive versus static). Data were combined using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models to yield summary effect sizes. A total of 63 interventions in 43 studies met the inclusion criteria. Behavioral interventions increased screening by 13.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.7-21.2] compared with usual care, and by 13.0% (95% CI, 8.7-17.4) when using multiple strategies and 5.6% (95% CI, 0.6-10.6) when using a single intervention compared to active controls. Cognitive interventions using generic education strategies had little impact on screening, but those that used theory-based education (e.g., health belief model) increased rates by 23.6% (95% CI, 16.4-30.1) compared with usual care. Sociological interventions also increased screening rates. Interventions using a theoretical framework were the most effective in increasing screening rates. The ability of these interventions to increase screening among subgroups and improve rates of ongoing screening, as well as the costs of these strategies, is unknown and is an important area for future research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10498393

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  40 in total

1.  Predicting patterns of mammography use: a geographic perspective on national needs for intervention research.

Authors:  Julie Legler; Nancy Breen; Helen Meissner; Don Malec; Cathy Coyne
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 2.  Disparities in screening mammography. Current status, interventions and implications.

Authors:  Monica E Peek; Jini H Han
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 3.  Interventions to promote repeat breast cancer screening with mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sally W Vernon; Amy McQueen; Jasmin A Tiro; Deborah J del Junco
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-06-29       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Inconsistent mammography perceptions and practices among women at risk of breast cancer following a pediatric malignancy: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

Authors:  Stephanie M Smith; Jennifer S Ford; William Rakowski; Chaya S Moskowitz; Lisa Diller; Melissa M Hudson; Ann C Mertens; Annette L Stanton; Tara O Henderson; Wendy M Leisenring; Leslie L Robison; Kevin C Oeffinger
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2010-05-27       Impact factor: 2.506

5.  Automated telephone calls improved completion of fecal occult blood testing.

Authors:  David M Mosen; Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy Perrin; A Gabriela Rosales; David H Smith; Elizabeth G Liles; Jennifer L Schneider; Jennifer E Lafata; Ronald E Myers; Michael Kositch; Thomas Hickey; Russell E Glasgow
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Randomized trial of an intervention to improve mammography utilization among a triracial rural population of women.

Authors:  Electra Paskett; Cathy Tatum; Julia Rushing; Robert Michielutte; Ronny Bell; Kristie Long Foley; Marisa Bittoni; Stephanie L Dickinson; Ann Scheck McAlearney; Katherine Reeves
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-09-06       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Results of a randomized trial to increase mammogram usage among Samoan women.

Authors:  Shiraz I Mishra; Roshan Bastani; Catherine M Crespi; L Cindy Chang; Pat H Luce; Claudia R Baquet
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Geographic methods for understanding and responding to disparities in mammography use in Toronto, Canada.

Authors:  Richard Henry Glazier; Maria Isabella Creatore; Piotr Gozdyra; Flora I Matheson; Leah S Steele; Eleanor Boyle; Rahim Moineddin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 9.  A meta-analysis of interventions to promote mammography among ethnic minority women.

Authors:  Hae-Ra Han; Jong-Eun Lee; Jiyun Kim; Haley K Hedlin; Heejung Song; Miyong T Kim
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2009 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.381

10.  Moving mammogram-reluctant women to screening: a pilot study.

Authors:  Mary E Costanza; Roger Luckmann; Mary Jo White; Milagros C Rosal; Nancy LaPelle; Caroline Cranos
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2009-06-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.