Literature DB >> 11279781

Strategies for increasing women participation in community breast cancer screening.

X Bonfill1, M Marzo, M Pladevall, J Martí, J I Emparanza.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Strategies for reducing breast cancer mortality in western countries have focused on screening, at least for women aged 50 to 69 years. One of the requirements of any community screening program is to achieve a high participation rate, which is related to methods of invitation. Therefore, it was decided to systematically review the scientific evidence on the different strategies aimed at improving women's participation in breast cancer screening programs and activities.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of different strategies for increasing the participation rate of women invited to community (population-based) breast cancer screening activities or mammography programs. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE (1966-2000), CENTRAL (2000), and EMBASE (1998-1999) searches for 1966 to 1999 were supplemented by reports and letters to the European Screening Breast Cancer Programs (Euref Network). SELECTION CRITERIA: Both published and unpublished trials were eligible for inclusion, provided the women had been invited to a community breast screening activity or program and had been randomised to an intervention group or a control group with no active intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified 151 articles, which were reviewed independently by two people. The discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer in order to reach consensus. Thirty-four studies were excluded because they lacked a control group; 58 of the other 117 articles were considered as opportunistic and not community-based; 59 articles, which reported 70 community-based randomised controlled trials or clinical controlled trials, were accepted. In 24 of these, the control group had not been exposed to any active intervention, but 8 of the 24 had to be excluded because the denominator for estimating attendance was unknown. At the end, 16 studies constituted the material for this review, although two studies were further excluded because their groups were not comparable at baseline. Data from all but one study were based on or converted to an intention-to-treat analysis. Attendance in response to the mammogram invitation was the main outcome measure. MAIN
RESULTS: The evidence favoured five active strategies for inviting women into community breast cancer screening services: letter of invitation (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.92), mailed educational material (OR 2.81, 95% CI 1.96 to 4.02), letter of invitation plus phone call (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.18), phone call (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.23), and training activities plus direct reminders for the women (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.50). Home visits did not prove to be effective (OR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.80 to 1.40) and letters of invitation to multiple examinations plus educational material favoured the control group (OR 0.62, 95 % CI 0.32 to 1.20). REVIEWER'S
CONCLUSIONS: Most active recruitment strategies for breast cancer screening programs examined in this review were more effective than no intervention. Combinations of effective interventions can have an important effect. Some costly strategies, as a home visit and a letter of invitation to multiple screening examinations plus educational material, were not effective. Further reviews comparing the effective interventions and studies that include cost-effectiveness, women's satisfaction and equity issues are needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11279781      PMCID: PMC6457645          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002943

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  62 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of clinical breast assessment-based screening in rural Egypt.

Authors:  Adel Denewer; Osama Hussein; Omar Farouk; Waleed Elnahas; Ashraf Khater; Aiman El-Saed
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Patient Barriers to Mammography Identified During a Reminder Program.

Authors:  Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy Perrin; A Gabriela Rosales; Jennifer Schneider; Mary M Rix; Russell E Glasgow
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 2.681

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.  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

Review 5.  A systematic review of mammography educational interventions for low-income women.

Authors:  Tatiana M Bailey; Jorge Delva; Kimberlee Gretebeck; Kristine Siefert; Amid Ismail
Journal:  Am J Health Promot       Date:  2005 Nov-Dec

6.  A cluster-randomized trial of a primary care informatics-based system for breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Steven J Atlas; Richard W Grant; William T Lester; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Yuchiao Chang; Michael J Barry; Henry C Chueh
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography.

Authors:  Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-04

8.  A population-based study of ethnicity and breast cancer stage at diagnosis in Ontario.

Authors:  O M Ginsburg; H D Fischer; B R Shah; L Lipscombe; L Fu; G M Anderson; P A Rochon
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.677

9.  Mammography rates for 20 community-based family practices in Ontario: a full practice audit.

Authors:  J Graham Swanson; Janusz Kaczorowski
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2007 Sep-Oct

Review 10.  Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.

Authors:  Adrian G K Edwards; Gurudutt Naik; Harry Ahmed; Glyn J Elwyn; Timothy Pickles; Kerry Hood; Rebecca Playle
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-02-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.