OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of interventions intended to increase rates of regular breast cancer screening, according to recommended guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial of 2 outreach interventions (a mail reminder and a telephone reminder plus appointment scheduling) compared with a routine publicity campaign to encourage continued participation in mammography screening. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Participants were 1908 women aged 50 to 75 years continuously enrolled in a large group-model HMO during the study who underwent a bilateral mammogram during the first quarter of 1994 and no subsequent mammogram during the next 18 to 21 months. Data were obtained from health plan administrative data files supplemented by medical chart review. Women were randomly assigned to receive (1) a mail reminder, (2) a telephone reminder, or (3) routine publicity on mammography for all women. The outcome measure was a mammogram received after the intervention period and within 2 years of the initial mammogram date. RESULTS: Bivariate and multivariate statistical analyses showed that participation was significantly higher for women contacted by telephone than through routine publicity. Mail reminders were no more effective than a routine publicity campaign. Primary care physician and gynecologist visits increased the likelihood of a subsequent mammogram for women in all intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS:Telephone contact by regular health plan staff was more successful than publicity in encouraging continued participation in mammography screening in women enrolled in a group-model managed health care plan. Because mailings did not influence participation in mammography screening, health plans should be cautious about investing in member mailings without first evaluating their effectiveness in the context of existing outreach efforts.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of interventions intended to increase rates of regular breast cancer screening, according to recommended guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial of 2 outreach interventions (a mail reminder and a telephone reminder plus appointment scheduling) compared with a routine publicity campaign to encourage continued participation in mammography screening. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Participants were 1908 women aged 50 to 75 years continuously enrolled in a large group-model HMO during the study who underwent a bilateral mammogram during the first quarter of 1994 and no subsequent mammogram during the next 18 to 21 months. Data were obtained from health plan administrative data files supplemented by medical chart review. Women were randomly assigned to receive (1) a mail reminder, (2) a telephone reminder, or (3) routine publicity on mammography for all women. The outcome measure was a mammogram received after the intervention period and within 2 years of the initial mammogram date. RESULTS: Bivariate and multivariate statistical analyses showed that participation was significantly higher for women contacted by telephone than through routine publicity. Mail reminders were no more effective than a routine publicity campaign. Primary care physician and gynecologist visits increased the likelihood of a subsequent mammogram for women in all intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone contact by regular health plan staff was more successful than publicity in encouraging continued participation in mammography screening in women enrolled in a group-model managed health care plan. Because mailings did not influence participation in mammography screening, health plans should be cautious about investing in member mailings without first evaluating their effectiveness in the context of existing outreach efforts.
Authors: Allen J Dietrich; Jonathan N Tobin; Andrea Cassells; Christina M Robinson; Mary Ann Greene; Carol Hill Sox; Michael L Beach; Katherine N DuHamel; Richard G Younge Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-04-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Peh Joo Ho; Fuh Yong Wong; Wen Yee Chay; Elaine Hsuen Lim; Zi Lin Lim; Kee Seng Chia; Mikael Hartman; Jingmei Li Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-10-28 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Koshi Takahashi; Sho Nakamura; Kaname Watanabe; Masahiko Sakaguchi; Hiroto Narimatsu Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-12 Impact factor: 4.614