Literature DB >> 11815402

The effectiveness of interventions to promote mammography among women with historically lower rates of screening.

Julie Legler1, Helen I Meissner, Cathy Coyne, Nancy Breen, Veronica Chollette, Barbara K Rimer.   

Abstract

This study examines mammography-enhancing intervention studies that focus on women in groups with historically lower rates of mammography use than the general population. These groups consist of women who are disproportionately older, poorer, of racial-ethnic minorities, have lower levels of formal education, and live in rural areas. We refer to them as diverse populations. The purpose of this report is to determine which types of mammography-enhancing interventions are most effective for these diverse populations. For this report, United States and international studies with concurrent controls that reported actual receipt of mammograms (usually based on self-report) as an outcome were eligible for inclusion. Intervention effects were measured by differences in intervention and control group screening rates postintervention and were weighted to reflect the certainty of each study's contribution. These effects differed significantly (Q = 218, 34 df), and the variation between studies was best explained by indicators of the use of access-enhancing approaches. Combined intervention effects were estimated for different categories of intervention types using random effects models for subgroups of studies. The strongest combination of approaches used access-enhancing and individual-directed strategies and resulted in an estimated 27% increase in mammography use (95% confidence interval, 9.9-43.9, nine studies). Additionally impressive was the access-enhancing and system-directed combination (20% increase and 95% confidence interval, 8.2-30.6, five studies). Access-enhancing strategies are an important complement to individual- and system-directed interventions for women with historically lower rates of screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11815402

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  71 in total

Review 1.  Disparities in screening mammography. Current status, interventions and implications.

Authors:  Monica E Peek; Jini H Han
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Theory development in health promotion: are we there yet?

Authors:  Richard Crosby; Seth M Noar
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2010-04-09

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

Review 4.  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

5.  Ethnic differences in decisional balance and stages of mammography adoption.

Authors:  Regina Otero-Sabogal; Susan Stewart; Sarah J Shema; Rena J Pasick
Journal:  Health Educ Behav       Date:  2006-08-04

6.  Interventions that increase use of Pap tests among ethnic minority women: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hae-Ra Han; Jiyun Kim; Jong-Eun Lee; Haley K Hedlin; Heejung Song; Youngshin Song; Miyong T Kim
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2010-04-29       Impact factor: 3.894

7.  Results of a randomized trial to increase mammogram usage among Samoan women.

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

Review 8.  Decision making about cancer screening: an assessment of the state of the science and a suggested research agenda from the ASPO Behavioral Oncology and Cancer Communication Special Interest Group.

Authors:  Marc T Kiviniemi; Jennifer L Hay; Aimee S James; Isaac M Lipkus; Helen I Meissner; Michael Stefanek; Jamie L Studts; John F P Bridges; David R Close; Deborah O Erwin; Resa M Jones; Karen Kaiser; Kathryn M Kash; Kimberly M Kelly; Simon J Craddock Lee; Jason Q Purnell; Laura A Siminoff; Susan T Vadaparampil; Catharine Wang
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 9.  A meta-analysis of interventions to promote mammography among ethnic minority women.

Authors:  Hae-Ra Han; Jong-Eun Lee; Jiyun Kim; Haley K Hedlin; Heejung Song; Miyong T Kim
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2009 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.381

10.  Cost of services provided by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

Authors:  Donatus U Ekwueme; Sujha Subramanian; Justin G Trogdon; Jacqueline W Miller; Janet E Royalty; Chunyu Li; Gery P Guy; Wesley Crouse; Hope Thompson; James G Gardner
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.