Literature DB >> 16214915

Effect of direct mail as a population-based strategy to increase mammography use among low-income underinsured women ages 40 to 64 years.

Jonathan S Slater1, George A Henly, Chung Nim Ha, Michael E Malone, John A Nyman, Sarah Diaz, Paul G McGovern.   

Abstract

Women with inadequate health insurance have lower mammography rates than the general population. Finding successful strategies to enroll eligible women is an ongoing challenge for the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. To test the effectiveness of a population-based strategy to increase mammography utilization among low-income underinsured women ages 40 to 64 years, a randomized trial was conducted to assess the effect of two mailed interventions on mammography utilization through Sage, the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program in Minnesota. Women (N = 145,467) ages 40 to 63 years [mean (SD), 49.7 (6.8)] with estimated household incomes below 50,000 US dollars (47.9% were < 35,000 US dollars) from a commercial database were randomized to three groups: Mail, Mail Plus Incentive, or Control. Both the Mail and the Mail Plus Incentive groups received two simple mailings prompting them to call a toll-free number to access free mammography services. The Mail Plus Incentive intervention offered a small monetary incentive for a completed mammogram. After 1 year, both intervention groups had significantly higher Sage mammography rates than the Controls, and the Mail Plus Incentive group had a significantly higher rate than the Mail group. The Mail and Mail Plus Incentive interventions were estimated to produce increases in Sage screening rates of 0.23% and 0.75%, respectively, beyond the composite Control rate of 0.83%. Direct mail is an effective strategy for increasing mammography use through Sage. Coupling direct mail with an incentive significantly enhances the intervention's effectiveness. Direct mail should be considered as a strategy to increase mammography use among low-income, medically underserved women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16214915     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0034

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


  13 in total

1.  Canadian cancer screening disparities: a recent historical perspective.

Authors:  J Kerner; J Liu; K Wang; S Fung; C Landry; G Lockwood; L Zitzelsberger; V Mai
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Interpersonal Communication and Smoking Cessation in the Context of an Incentive-Based Program: Survey Evidence From a Telehealth Intervention in a Low-Income Population.

Authors:  Michael J Parks; Jonathan S Slater; Alexander J Rothman; Christina L Nelson
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2015-09-18

Review 3.  Interventions to improve adherence to surveillance guidelines in survivors of childhood cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Veda Zabih; Alyssa Kahane; Natalya E O'Neill; Noah Ivers; Paul C Nathan
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 4.442

4.  Promoting regular mammography screening II. Results from a randomized controlled trial in US women veterans.

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

5.  The Efficacy of Direct Mail, Patient Navigation, and Incentives for Increasing Mammography and Colonoscopy in the Medicaid Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Jonathan S Slater; Michael J Parks; Christina L Nelson; Kelly D Hughes
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2018-06-11       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Community-based intervention to promote breast cancer awareness and screening: the Korean experience.

Authors:  Keeho Park; Woi Hyun Hong; Su Yeon Kye; Euichul Jung; Myung-hyun Kim; Hyeong Geun Park
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2011-06-14       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 7.  What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? a systematic review.

Authors:  Melissa C Brouwers; Carol De Vito; Lavannya Bahirathan; Angela Carol; June C Carroll; Michelle Cotterchio; Maureen Dobbins; Barbara Lent; Cheryl Levitt; Nancy Lewis; S Elizabeth McGregor; Lawrence Paszat; Carol Rand; Nadine Wathen
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2011-09-29       Impact factor: 7.327

Review 8.  Effective interventions to facilitate the uptake of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: an implementation guideline.

Authors:  Melissa C Brouwers; Carol De Vito; Lavannya Bahirathan; Angela Carol; June C Carroll; Michelle Cotterchio; Maureen Dobbins; Barbara Lent; Cheryl Levitt; Nancy Lewis; S Elizabeth McGregor; Lawrence Paszat; Carol Rand; Nadine Wathen
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2011-09-29       Impact factor: 7.327

9.  Improving osteoporosis screening: results from a randomized cluster trial.

Authors:  Jennifer Elston Lafata; Deneil Kolk; Edward L Peterson; Bruce D McCarthy; Thomas W Weiss; Ya-Ting Chen; Bruce K Muma
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 10.  Interventions to increase the uptake of mammography amongst low income women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michael P Gardner; Abbey Adams; Mona Jeffreys
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-02-22       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.