OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to examine the effectiveness of educational interventions in increasing mammography screening among low-income women. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the ISI Web of Science, were searched for relevant articles. STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomized, community-based trials targeting low-income women and published between January 1980 and March 2003 were included. DATA EXTRACTION: The search yielded 242 studies; 24 met all inclusion criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three studies used mammography vans, three used low-cost vouchers or provided free mammograms, three used home visits, one used community education alone, one provided referrals, five incorporated multiple intervention strategies, two used phone calls, one used videos and print material, and five used primarily print material. RESULTS: Of nine studies that reduced barriers to care via mammography vans, cost vouchers, or home visits, eight showed statistically significant increases in mammography screening. Seven of the eight studies that used peer educators had significant increases in screening, as did four of the five studies that used multiple (intervention) components. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that used peer educators, incorporated multiple intervention strategies, or provided easy access via vans, cost vouchers, or home visits were effective in increasing screenings. Mailed letter or telephone reminders were not effective in trials involving low-income women, which is contrary to findings from middle/upper-income studies.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to examine the effectiveness of educational interventions in increasing mammography screening among low-income women. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the ISI Web of Science, were searched for relevant articles. STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomized, community-based trials targeting low-income women and published between January 1980 and March 2003 were included. DATA EXTRACTION: The search yielded 242 studies; 24 met all inclusion criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three studies used mammography vans, three used low-cost vouchers or provided free mammograms, three used home visits, one used community education alone, one provided referrals, five incorporated multiple intervention strategies, two used phone calls, one used videos and print material, and five used primarily print material. RESULTS: Of nine studies that reduced barriers to care via mammography vans, cost vouchers, or home visits, eight showed statistically significant increases in mammography screening. Seven of the eight studies that used peer educators had significant increases in screening, as did four of the five studies that used multiple (intervention) components. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that used peer educators, incorporated multiple intervention strategies, or provided easy access via vans, cost vouchers, or home visits were effective in increasing screenings. Mailed letter or telephone reminders were not effective in trials involving low-income women, which is contrary to findings from middle/upper-income studies.
Authors: Julie Legler; Helen I Meissner; Cathy Coyne; Nancy Breen; Veronica Chollette; Barbara K Rimer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: J S Slater; C N Ha; M E Malone; P McGovern; S D Madigan; J R Finnegan; A L Casey-Paal; K L Margolis; N Lurie Journal: Prev Med Date: 1998 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: David B Reuben; Lawrence W Bassett; Susan H Hirsch; Catherine A Jackson; Roshan Bastani Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kangmin Zhu; Sandra Hunter; Louis J Bernard; Kathleen Payne-Wilks; Chanel L Roland; Lloyd C Elam; Ziding Feng; Robert S Levine Journal: Prev Med Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Wendy Auslander; Debra Haire-Joshu; Cheryl Houston; Chaie-Won Rhee; James Herbert Williams Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Peggy O'Hara Murdock; Hari Garbharran; Mary Jo Edwards; Maria A Smith; Johnny Lutchmiah; Makhosi Mkhize Journal: Health Care Women Int Date: 2003-07
Authors: Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy Perrin; A Gabriela Rosales; Jennifer Schneider; Mary M Rix; Russell E Glasgow Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Kathryn Cardarelli; Rachael Jackson; Marcus Martin; Kim Linnear; Roy Lopez; Charles Senteio; Preston Weaver; Anna Hill; Jesse Banda; Marva Epperson-Brown; Janet Morrison; Deborah Parrish; J R Newton; Marcene Royster; Sheila Haley; Camille Lafayette; Phyllis Harris; Jamboor K Vishwanatha; Eric S Johnson Journal: Prog Community Health Partnersh Date: 2011
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: Elena B Elkin; Nicole M Ishill; Jacqueline G Snow; Katherine S Panageas; Peter B Bach; Laura Liberman; Fahui Wang; Deborah Schrag Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.983
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