R Bastani1, A E Maxwell, C Bradford, I P Das, K X Yan. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Research, University of California at Los Angeles School of Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California 90095-6900, USA. bastani@ucla.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates that although first-degree relatives of breast cancer cases are at increased risk of developing the disease themselves, they may be underutilizing screening mammography. Therefore, interventions to increase the use of mammography in this group are urgently needed. METHODS: A randomized two-group design was used to evaluate an intervention to increase mammography use among women (N = 901) with at least one first-degree relative with breast cancer. A statewide cancer registry was used to obtain a random sample of breast cancer cases who identified eligible relatives. The mailed intervention consisted of personalized risk notification and other theoretically driven materials tailored for high-risk women. RESULTS: An overall significant intervention effect was observed (8% intervention group advantage) in mammography at post-test. There was an interaction of the intervention with age such that there was no effect among women <50 years of age and a fairly large (20% advantage) effect among women 50+ and 65+. Health insurance, education, and having had a mammogram in the year before baseline assessment were positive predictors of mammography at post-test. Perceived risk, calculated risk, and relationship to index cancer case were not associated with mammography receipt. CONCLUSION: The intervention was successful in increasing mammography rates among high-risk women 50+ years of age. Further work is needed to determine why it was ineffective among younger women. Copyright 1999 American Health Foundation and Academic Press.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates that although first-degree relatives of breast cancer cases are at increased risk of developing the disease themselves, they may be underutilizing screening mammography. Therefore, interventions to increase the use of mammography in this group are urgently needed. METHODS: A randomized two-group design was used to evaluate an intervention to increase mammography use among women (N = 901) with at least one first-degree relative with breast cancer. A statewide cancer registry was used to obtain a random sample of breast cancer cases who identified eligible relatives. The mailed intervention consisted of personalized risk notification and other theoretically driven materials tailored for high-risk women. RESULTS: An overall significant intervention effect was observed (8% intervention group advantage) in mammography at post-test. There was an interaction of the intervention with age such that there was no effect among women <50 years of age and a fairly large (20% advantage) effect among women 50+ and 65+. Health insurance, education, and having had a mammogram in the year before baseline assessment were positive predictors of mammography at post-test. Perceived risk, calculated risk, and relationship to index cancer case were not associated with mammography receipt. CONCLUSION: The intervention was successful in increasing mammography rates among high-risk women 50+ years of age. Further work is needed to determine why it was ineffective among younger women. Copyright 1999 American Health Foundation and Academic Press.
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
Authors: Roshan Bastani; Beth A Glenn; Vicky M Taylor; Moon S Chen; Tung T Nguyen; Susan L Stewart; Annette E Maxwell Journal: Prev Med Date: 2009-08-27 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Annette E Maxwell; Catherine M Crespi; Leda L Danao; Cynthia Antonio; Gabriel M Garcia; Roshan Bastani Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Annette E Maxwell; Roshan Bastani; Moon S Chen; Tung T Nguyen; Susan L Stewart; Vicky M Taylor Journal: Prev Med Date: 2009-10-31 Impact factor: 4.018