BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine whether a tailored, stage-matched educational intervention, guided by the transtheoretical model (TTM), would increase rates of repeat-screening mammography. DESIGN SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1324 women (N=1026 after attrition) aged 50 to 74 years were recruited from a staff-model health maintenance organization. Some of the women were not due for mammograms at the time of recruitment. INTERVENTION: Women were randomly assigned to one of three intervention conditions: Group 1, no educational materials (usual care); Group 2, standard materials; and Group 3, stage-matched/tailored materials. Women in Groups 2 and 3 received a mailed education packet after both a baseline and a follow-up telephone interview. All women in Group 2 received the same materials regardless of differences in baseline mammography-related attitudes and behaviors. Each woman in Group 3 received materials based on her stage of adoption for mammography and TTM constructs. MAIN OUTCOME: Using clinical records, repeat screening was defined as receipt of a second mammogram within 14 months after obtaining an initial postbaseline mammogram. RESULTS: Women in Group 3 were more likely to obtain repeat-screening mammograms than women in Group 1 (44.2% vs 35.8%; adjusted rate ratio = 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.11-1.46; adjusted rate difference = 0.06, 95% CI=-0.01-0.13). The screening percentage in Group 2 was intermediate (39.3%), and did not differ from either Group 3 or Group 1. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of the stage-matched/tailored intervention was sustained for repeat screening, although no educational materials were delivered to coincide with the timing for a second mammogram. However, the stage-matched/tailored intervention was not sufficient to have a substantial impact on screening beyond the effect of standard educational materials. Future interventions may need to administer "booster" sessions to increase repeat screenings.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine whether a tailored, stage-matched educational intervention, guided by the transtheoretical model (TTM), would increase rates of repeat-screening mammography. DESIGN SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1324 women (N=1026 after attrition) aged 50 to 74 years were recruited from a staff-model health maintenance organization. Some of the women were not due for mammograms at the time of recruitment. INTERVENTION: Women were randomly assigned to one of three intervention conditions: Group 1, no educational materials (usual care); Group 2, standard materials; and Group 3, stage-matched/tailored materials. Women in Groups 2 and 3 received a mailed education packet after both a baseline and a follow-up telephone interview. All women in Group 2 received the same materials regardless of differences in baseline mammography-related attitudes and behaviors. Each woman in Group 3 received materials based on her stage of adoption for mammography and TTM constructs. MAIN OUTCOME: Using clinical records, repeat screening was defined as receipt of a second mammogram within 14 months after obtaining an initial postbaseline mammogram. RESULTS:Women in Group 3 were more likely to obtain repeat-screening mammograms than women in Group 1 (44.2% vs 35.8%; adjusted rate ratio = 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.11-1.46; adjusted rate difference = 0.06, 95% CI=-0.01-0.13). The screening percentage in Group 2 was intermediate (39.3%), and did not differ from either Group 3 or Group 1. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of the stage-matched/tailored intervention was sustained for repeat screening, although no educational materials were delivered to coincide with the timing for a second mammogram. However, the stage-matched/tailored intervention was not sufficient to have a substantial impact on screening beyond the effect of standard educational materials. Future interventions may need to administer "booster" sessions to increase repeat screenings.
Authors: Mona N Fouad; Edward Partridge; Mark Dignan; Cheryl Holt; Rhoda Johnson; Chris Nagy; Sharina Person; Theresa Wynn; Isabel Scarinci Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: David R Lairson; Yu-Chia Chang; Judith L Bettencourt; Sally W Vernon; Anthony Greisinger Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-06-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jennifer M Gierisch; Jo Anne Earp; Noel T Brewer; Barbara K Rimer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-03-30 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: Kathleen M Russell; Victoria L Champion; Patrick O Monahan; Sandra Millon-Underwood; Qianqian Zhao; Nicole Spacey; Nathan L Rush; Electra D Paskett Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Judith D DePue; Michael G Goldstein; Colleen A Redding; Wayne F Velicer; Xiaowu Sun; Joseph L Fava; Alessandra Kazura; William Rakowski Journal: Prev Med Date: 2007-12-23 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Susan M Rawl; Celette Sugg Skinner; Susan M Perkins; Jeffrey Springston; Hsiao-Lan Wang; Kathleen M Russell; Yan Tong; Netsanet Gebregziabher; Connie Krier; Esther Smith-Howell; Tawana Brady-Watts; Laura J Myers; Deborah Ballard; Broderick Rhyant; Deanna R Willis; Thomas F Imperiale; Victoria L Champion Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2012-08-27