OBJECTIVE: to assess the effectiveness of patient-targeted interventions in increasing mammography use when performed outside (outreach) or inside the primary care medical setting (inreach). METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of controlled interventions to increase mammography use in patients in the United States published between 1980 and February 2001. Interventions were classified by setting (inreach or outreach), mechanism of action (behavioral, cognitive, sociologic, or a combination), type of control group (active or usual care), number of strategies, and mode of delivery (static or interactive). Summary estimates were calculated with DerSimonian and Laird random effects models for each group of interventions. RESULTS: We included 66 studies with 98 separate interventions. Inreach and outreach interventions were equally effective in increasing mammography use. Compared to active controls, behavioral interventions with multiple strategies increased mammography use by 14.0% (95% CI, 8.7-19.2) in inreach and 18.7% (95% CI, 4.9-32.4) in outreach settings. Theory-based educational strategies delivered interactively increased mammography use by 10.7% (95% CI, 6.8-14.7) and 19.9% (95% CI, 10.6-29.1) in inreach and outreach settings, respectively. Interventions that combined behavioral and theory-based educational strategies with usual care controls increased mammography use by 14.0% (95% CI, 7.9-20.2) in inreach and 27.3% (95% CI, 14.7-40.0) in outreach settings. Finally, sociologic interventions increased mammography use by 10.7% (95% CI, 3.4-18.0) and 9.1% (95% CI, 1.7-13.3) in inreach and outreach settings, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Inreach and outreach interventions to increase mammography use were similarly effective within intervention categories based on mechanism of action, mode of delivery, and type of control group. Ultimate decisions about intervention strategies will depend on the characteristics of the target population, practical considerations, and relative cost-effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE: to assess the effectiveness of patient-targeted interventions in increasing mammography use when performed outside (outreach) or inside the primary care medical setting (inreach). METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of controlled interventions to increase mammography use in patients in the United States published between 1980 and February 2001. Interventions were classified by setting (inreach or outreach), mechanism of action (behavioral, cognitive, sociologic, or a combination), type of control group (active or usual care), number of strategies, and mode of delivery (static or interactive). Summary estimates were calculated with DerSimonian and Laird random effects models for each group of interventions. RESULTS: We included 66 studies with 98 separate interventions. Inreach and outreach interventions were equally effective in increasing mammography use. Compared to active controls, behavioral interventions with multiple strategies increased mammography use by 14.0% (95% CI, 8.7-19.2) in inreach and 18.7% (95% CI, 4.9-32.4) in outreach settings. Theory-based educational strategies delivered interactively increased mammography use by 10.7% (95% CI, 6.8-14.7) and 19.9% (95% CI, 10.6-29.1) in inreach and outreach settings, respectively. Interventions that combined behavioral and theory-based educational strategies with usual care controls increased mammography use by 14.0% (95% CI, 7.9-20.2) in inreach and 27.3% (95% CI, 14.7-40.0) in outreach settings. Finally, sociologic interventions increased mammography use by 10.7% (95% CI, 3.4-18.0) and 9.1% (95% CI, 1.7-13.3) in inreach and outreach settings, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Inreach and outreach interventions to increase mammography use were similarly effective within intervention categories based on mechanism of action, mode of delivery, and type of control group. Ultimate decisions about intervention strategies will depend on the characteristics of the target population, practical considerations, and relative cost-effectiveness.
Authors: Eduardo J Simoes; Sergio Mariotti; Alessandra Rossi; Alicia Heim; Felipe Lobello; Ali H Mokdad; Emanuele Scafato Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 3.380
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: Jennifer M Gierisch; Jessica T DeFrank; J Michael Bowling; Barbara K Rimer; Jeanine M Matuszewski; David Farrell; Celette Sugg Skinner Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Sally W Vernon; Deborah J del Junco; Jasmin A Tiro; Sharon P Coan; Catherine A Perz; Lori A Bastian; William Rakowski; Wen Chan; David R Lairson; Amy McQueen; Maria E Fernandez; Cynthia Warrick; Arada Halder; Carlo DiClemente Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-02-26 Impact factor: 13.506