Literature DB >> 16353657

Evaluating a tailored intervention to increase screening mammography in an urban area.

Bruce Allen1, Shahrzad Bazargan-Hejazi.   

Abstract

METHOD: The study was conducted over a four-year period, 1996 and 2000. Participants were recruited using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) software and random-digit dialing (RDD). Study eligibility criteria included living in the King/Drew Medical Center service area in Los Angeles, having an operable telephone, being female > or = 40 years old and not having had a screening mammogram in the past year. Four-hundred-thirty respondents were randomly assigned to the intervention and comparison groups. English and Spanish focus-group-tested tailored interventions were administered telephonically by trained interviewers. African Americans and Latinas constituted 83.0% of the sample at assignment and 83.8% at six-month follow-up, which is representative of the study area.
RESULTS: The main outcome variable of interest in this study was having a screening mammogram during the time interval between baseline and the six-month follow-up assessment. Multiple logistic regressions that revealed factors predicting the outcome variable included: 1) age (p < or = 0.05, OR=2.22, CI 0.98-5.0); 2) study group (p < or = 0.05, OR=1.76, CI 1.06-2.92); 3) prior mammograms (p < or = 0.05, O0R=2.51, 1.39-4.56); and 4) and knowledge of the age when a woman should begin getting mammograms on a regular basis (p < or = 0.05, OR=0.55, 0.33-0.92).
CONCLUSION: Tailored telephone counseling increased the instances of screening mammograms by nearly 8% in the intervention group at follow-up. The results of this study confirm previous findings regarding the impact of structural and behavioral factors related to screening mammography.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16353657      PMCID: PMC2594691     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc        ISSN: 0027-9684            Impact factor:   1.798


  50 in total

1.  Prevalence and correlates of repeat mammography among women aged 55-79 in the Year 2000 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  William Rakowski; Nancy Breen; Helen Meissner; Barbara K Rimer; Sally W Vernon; Melissa A Clark; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.018

2.  How valid are mammography self-reports?

Authors:  E S King; B K Rimer; B Trock; A Balshem; P Engstrom
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Barriers and facilitators to compliance with routine mammographic screening.

Authors:  B Rimer; P F Engstrom; M K Keintz; R E Myers; J Rosan
Journal:  Prog Clin Biol Res       Date:  1989

4.  Encouraging screening mammograms. Results of the 1988 Connecticut Breast Cancer Detection Awareness Campaign.

Authors:  D I Gregorio; S Kegeles; C Parker; S Benn
Journal:  Conn Med       Date:  1990-07

5.  Predictors of adherence to screening mammography among Korean American women.

Authors:  Hee-Soon Juon; Miyong Kim; Sharada Shankar; Wolmi Han
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Benefits and costs of interventions to improve breast cancer outcomes in African American women.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Clyde B Schechter; K Robin Yabroff; William Lawrence; James Dignam; Peter Muennig; Yoko Chavez; Jennifer Cullen; Marianne Fahs
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-06-01       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Improving the utilization of screening mammography in primary care practices.

Authors:  A B Nattinger; R J Panzer; J Janus
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1989-09

8.  Cost-effectiveness of a tailored intervention to increase screening in HMO women overdue for Pap test and mammography services.

Authors:  Frances L Lynch; Evelyn P Whitlock; Barbara G Valanis; Sabina K Smith
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  Another round in the mammography controversy.

Authors:  Helen I Meissner; Barbara K Rimer; William W Davis; Ellen J Eisner; Ilene C Siegler
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.681

Review 10.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to enhance mammography compliance using computer modeling (CAN*TROL).

Authors:  Jasmanda H Wu; Man C Fung; Wenyaw Chan; David R Lairson
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.725

View more
  14 in total

1.  Colorectal cancer screening brochure for Latinos: focus group evaluation.

Authors:  Julia L Cooperman; Elizaveta Efuni; Cristina Villagra; Katherine DuHamel; Lina Jandorf
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Educating Hispanic women about breast cancer prevention: evaluation of a home-based promotora-led intervention.

Authors:  Jennifer C Livaudais; Gloria D Coronado; Noah Espinoza; Ilda Islas; Genoveva Ibarra; Beti Thompson
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  A meta-analysis of computer-tailored interventions for health behavior change.

Authors:  Paul Krebs; James O Prochaska; Joseph S Rossi
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 4.  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

5.  Comparing perceived and test-based knowledge of cancer risk and prevention among Hispanic and African Americans: an example of community participatory research.

Authors:  Loretta Jones; Mohsen Bazargan; Anna Lucas-Wright; Jaydutt V Vadgama; Roberto Vargas; James Smith; Salman Otoukesh; Annette E Maxwell
Journal:  Ethn Dis       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 1.847

6.  Timing is everything: methodologic issues locating and recruiting medically underserved women for abnormal mammography follow-up research.

Authors:  Alecia Malin Fair; Debra Wujcik; Jin-Mann S Lin; Kathleen M Egan; Ana M Grau; Wei Zheng
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2008-01-17       Impact factor: 2.226

7.  Race/Ethnicity and Primary Language: Health Beliefs about Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Diverse, Low-Income Population.

Authors:  Alison Tytell Brenner; Linda K Ko; Nancy Janz; Shivani Gupta; John Inadomi
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2015-08

8.  Cost analysis of a patient navigation system to increase screening colonoscopy adherence among urban minorities.

Authors:  Lina Jandorf; Lauren M Stossel; Julia L Cooperman; Joshua Graff Zivin; Uri Ladabaum; Diana Hall; Linda D Thélémaque; William Redd; Steven H Itzkowitz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2012-07-25       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Tailored interventions to promote mammography screening: a meta-analytic review.

Authors:  Stephanie J Sohl; Anne Moyer
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2007-06-23       Impact factor: 4.018

10.  Developing and evaluating an individually tailored intervention to increase mammography adherence among Chinese American women.

Authors:  Tsu-Yin Wu; Chiuman Lin
Journal:  Cancer Nurs       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.592

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.