Literature DB >> 11570837

A randomized controlled trial comparing three invitation strategies in a breast cancer screening program.

J M Segura1, X Castells, M Casamitjana, F Macià, M Porta, S J Katz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the response received by a population-based breast cancer screening program, according to three different invitation strategies: letters sent by mail from the program (program group), letters sent by mail from the Primary Health Care Team (PHT group), and direct contact through a trained professional (direct contact group).
METHODS: We used a cluster-randomized controlled trial with assignment to invitation group using home address. Nine hundred eighty-six women of Barcelona (Spain), ages 50 to 64 years, were invited to participate in the program. The main outcome used was the response rate after the first invitation.
RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-four women accepted the invitation (57.2%). The highest response rate was achieved in the direct contact group (63.5%), followed by the PHT group (55.6%), the program group being the one that attained the lowest response rate (52.1%). The direct contact group had a higher probability of participating than the PHT group (RR = 1.14, P = 0.037) or the program group (RR = 1.22, P = 0.003). The response rate in the direct contact group was 72.1% when the letter was received by the subject herself. The increase in response occurred particularly among women of lower educational level.
CONCLUSIONS: Inviting women to participate in a breast cancer screening program through direct contact by trained personnel increased participation rate compared with mailed-letter methods. The positive effect appeared restricted to women with lower educational levels. Copyright 2001 American Health Foundation and Academic Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11570837     DOI: 10.1006/pmed.2001.0891

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Med        ISSN: 0091-7435            Impact factor:   4.018


  8 in total

Review 1.  Design and analysis of group-randomized trials: a review of recent practices.

Authors:  Sherri P Varnell; David M Murray; Jessica B Janega; Jonathan L Blitstein
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 2.  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

3.  Cluster randomized trials of cancer screening interventions: are appropriate statistical methods being used?

Authors:  Catherine M Crespi; Annette E Maxwell; Sheng Wu
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2011-03-05       Impact factor: 2.226

4.  Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer screening indicators in a Spanish population-based program: a cohort study.

Authors:  Guillermo Bosch; Margarita Posso; Javier Louro; Marta Roman; Miquel Porta; Xavier Castells; Francesc Macià
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 8.713

Review 5.  Methods to increase participation in organised screening programs: a systematic review.

Authors:  Laura Camilloni; Eliana Ferroni; Beatriz Jimenez Cendales; Annamaria Pezzarossi; Giacomo Furnari; Piero Borgia; Gabriella Guasticchi; Paolo Giorgi Rossi
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  Screening uptake in a well-established diabetic retinopathy screening program: the role of geographical access and deprivation.

Authors:  Graham P Leese; Paul Boyle; Zhiqiang Feng; Alistair Emslie-Smith; John D Ellis
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2008-08-26       Impact factor: 17.152

7.  Response and participation of underserved populations after a three-step invitation strategy for a cardiometabolic health check.

Authors:  Iris Groenenberg; Mathilde R Crone; Sandra van Dijk; Jamila Ben Meftah; Barend J C Middelkoop; Willem J J Assendelft; Anne M Stiggelbout
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 3.295

8.  Rapid review of evaluation of interventions to improve participation in cancer screening services.

Authors:  Stephen W Duffy; Jonathan P Myles; Roberta Maroni; Abeera Mohammad
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 2.136

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.