OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve follow-up after an abnormal Pap smear. METHODS: We performed a qualitative meta-analysis of interventions designed to improve follow-up after an abnormal Pap smear and included studies that met the following criteria: randomized or concurrently controlled study design, defined outcomes, and data available for abstraction. Interventions were classified as behavioral, cognitive, sociologic, or combined strategies (e.g., behavioral and cognitive). Abnormal Pap smears were defined as any test result requiring additional follow-up. Effectiveness was measured by the rate of compliance with recommended follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-two interventions in 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Cognitive interventions utilizing interactive telephone counseling were the most effective, improving compliance by 24 to 31%. Behavioral interventions, such as patient reminders, were also effective, increasing follow-up by up to 18%. Not all of these results achieved statistical significance. The single sociologic intervention we identified used video-taped peer discussions to provide a message about abnormal Pap smears and appropriate follow-up. This intervention was not associated with increased follow-up after an abnormal test. The effectiveness of interventions using multiple types of strategies to improve follow-up was inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive strategies led to the greatest improvement in compliance with follow-up of abnormal Pap smear screening tests. Extension of similar interventions to follow-up of abnormal breast and colon cancer screening, development of physician- and system-targeted interventions, and evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of these strategies are important priorities for future research. Copyright 2000 American Health Foundation and Academic Press.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve follow-up after an abnormal Pap smear. METHODS: We performed a qualitative meta-analysis of interventions designed to improve follow-up after an abnormal Pap smear and included studies that met the following criteria: randomized or concurrently controlled study design, defined outcomes, and data available for abstraction. Interventions were classified as behavioral, cognitive, sociologic, or combined strategies (e.g., behavioral and cognitive). Abnormal Pap smears were defined as any test result requiring additional follow-up. Effectiveness was measured by the rate of compliance with recommended follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-two interventions in 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Cognitive interventions utilizing interactive telephone counseling were the most effective, improving compliance by 24 to 31%. Behavioral interventions, such as patient reminders, were also effective, increasing follow-up by up to 18%. Not all of these results achieved statistical significance. The single sociologic intervention we identified used video-taped peer discussions to provide a message about abnormal Pap smears and appropriate follow-up. This intervention was not associated with increased follow-up after an abnormal test. The effectiveness of interventions using multiple types of strategies to improve follow-up was inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive strategies led to the greatest improvement in compliance with follow-up of abnormal Pap smear screening tests. Extension of similar interventions to follow-up of abnormal breast and colon cancer screening, development of physician- and system-targeted interventions, and evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of these strategies are important priorities for future research. Copyright 2000 American Health Foundation and Academic Press.
Authors: Siu-Kuen Azor Hui; Suzanne M Miller; Kuang-Yi Wen; Zhu Fang; Tianyu Li; Joanne Buzaglo; Enrique Hernandez Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2014-04-09
Authors: Luz Angela Chocontá-Piraquive; Nelson Alvis-Guzman; Fernando De la Hoz-Restrepo Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Laura J Fish; Patricia G Moorman; Lashawn Wordlaw-Stintson; Adriana Vidal; Jennifer S Smith; Cathrine Hoyo Journal: Am J Health Educ Date: 2013
Authors: Kevin Fiscella; Elizabeth Whitley; Samantha Hendren; Peter Raich; Sharon Humiston; Paul Winters; Pascal Jean-Pierre; Patricia Valverde; William Thorland; Ronald Epstein Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Holly C Felix; Janet Bronstein; Zoran Bursac; M Kathryn Stewart; H Russell Foushee; Joshua Klapow Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2009 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Lynette A Denny; Michelle De Souza; Louise Kuhn; Sue J Goldie Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-05-28 Impact factor: 3.240