PURPOSE: The purposes of the study were (1). to assess the cost-effectiveness of three interventions to deliver breast and cervical cancer screening to women unscreened for >or=3 years and (2). to determine the relation of an invasive cervical cancer diagnosis to the interval since the last true screening test. METHODS: In a randomized trial, women were randomly assigned to (1). usual care, (2). letter plus follow-up letter, (3). letter plus follow-up phone call, (4). phone call plus follow-up phone call. Screening within 12 weeks was the outcome. A 5-year retrospective review of cervical cancer cases and screening histories was done. RESULTS: The 8% of women not screened for >or=5 years had 62% of the invasive cervical cancer cases. Mammography outreach led to screening in 10%, 24%, 51%, and 50% of controls, letter/letter, letter/phone, and phone/phone interventions groups, respectively. Cervical cancer screening outreach led to screening in 17%, 22%, 54%, and 50% of the respective groups. Letter reminders alone produced fewer tests at substantially higher costs than did personalized telephone notification. CONCLUSIONS: For cervical cancer, only 1 person in 12 was not screened in the preceding 5 years, but these accounted for nearly two thirds of invasive cancers. Aggressive outreach to the rarely screened is an important part of screening programs. Letter reminder, followed by a telephone appointment call, was the most cost-effective approach to screening rarely screened women. Lack of accurate information on prior hysterectomy adds substantial unnecessary costs to a screening reminder program.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purposes of the study were (1). to assess the cost-effectiveness of three interventions to deliver breast and cervical cancer screening to women unscreened for >or=3 years and (2). to determine the relation of an invasive cervical cancer diagnosis to the interval since the last true screening test. METHODS: In a randomized trial, women were randomly assigned to (1). usual care, (2). letter plus follow-up letter, (3). letter plus follow-up phone call, (4). phone call plus follow-up phone call. Screening within 12 weeks was the outcome. A 5-year retrospective review of cervical cancer cases and screening histories was done. RESULTS: The 8% of women not screened for >or=5 years had 62% of the invasive cervical cancer cases. Mammography outreach led to screening in 10%, 24%, 51%, and 50% of controls, letter/letter, letter/phone, and phone/phone interventions groups, respectively. Cervical cancer screening outreach led to screening in 17%, 22%, 54%, and 50% of the respective groups. Letter reminders alone produced fewer tests at substantially higher costs than did personalized telephone notification. CONCLUSIONS: For cervical cancer, only 1 person in 12 was not screened in the preceding 5 years, but these accounted for nearly two thirds of invasive cancers. Aggressive outreach to the rarely screened is an important part of screening programs. Letter reminder, followed by a telephone appointment call, was the most cost-effective approach to screening rarely screened women. Lack of accurate information on prior hysterectomy adds substantial unnecessary costs to a screening reminder program.
Authors: David R Lairson; Yu-Chia Chang; Theresa L Byrd; Judith Lee Smith; Maria E Fernandez; Katherine M Wilson Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Pranav K Gandhi; William M Gentry; Jeffery L Kibert; Erica Y Lee; Whitney Jordan; Michael B Bottorff; I-Chan Huang Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy Perrin; A Gabriela Rosales; Jennifer Schneider; Mary M Rix; Kara Keels; Stephanie Schoap; Russell E Glasgow Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Sara L Cross; Sanaa H Suharwardy; Phani Bodavula; Kenneth Schechtman; E Turner Overton; Nur F Onen; Michael A Lane Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2014-03-13
Authors: Thomas Everett; Andrew Bryant; Michelle F Griffin; Pierre Pl Martin-Hirsch; Carol A Forbes; Ruth G Jepson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2011-05-11