BACKGROUND:Minority and low-income women receive fewer cancer screenings than other women. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a telephone support intervention to increase rates of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening among minority and low-income women. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial conducted between November 2001 and April 2004. SETTING: 11 community and migrant health centers in New York City. PATIENTS: 1413 women who were overdue for cancer screening. INTERVENTION: Over 18 months, women assigned to the intervention group received an average of 4 calls from prevention care managers and women assigned to the control group received usual care. Follow-up data were available for 99% of women, and 91% of the intervention group received at least 1 call. MEASUREMENTS: Medical record documentation of mammography, Papanicolaou testing, and colorectal cancer screening according to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. RESULTS: The proportion of women who had mammography increased from 0.58 to 0.68 with the intervention and decreased from 0.60 to 0.58 with usual care; the proportion who had Papanicolaou testing increased from 0.71 to 0.78 with the intervention and was unchanged with usual care; and the proportion who had colorectal screening increased from 0.39 to 0.63 with the intervention and from 0.39 to 0.50 with usual care. The difference in the change in screening rates between groups was 0.12 for mammography (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.19), 0.07 for Papanicolaou testing (CI, 0.01 to 0.12), and 0.13 for colorectal screening (CI, 0.07 to 0.19). The proportion of women who were up to date for 3 tests increased from 0.21 to 0.43 with the intervention. LIMITATIONS: Participants were from 1 city and had access to a regular source of care. Medical records may not have captured all cancer screenings. CONCLUSIONS:Telephone support can improve cancer screening rates among women who visit community and migrant health centers. The intervention seems to be well suited to health plans, large medical groups, and other organizations that seek to increase cancer screening rates and to address disparities in care.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Minority and low-income women receive fewer cancer screenings than other women. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a telephone support intervention to increase rates of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening among minority and low-income women. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial conducted between November 2001 and April 2004. SETTING: 11 community and migrant health centers in New York City. PATIENTS: 1413 women who were overdue for cancer screening. INTERVENTION: Over 18 months, women assigned to the intervention group received an average of 4 calls from prevention care managers and women assigned to the control group received usual care. Follow-up data were available for 99% of women, and 91% of the intervention group received at least 1 call. MEASUREMENTS: Medical record documentation of mammography, Papanicolaou testing, and colorectal cancer screening according to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. RESULTS: The proportion of women who had mammography increased from 0.58 to 0.68 with the intervention and decreased from 0.60 to 0.58 with usual care; the proportion who had Papanicolaou testing increased from 0.71 to 0.78 with the intervention and was unchanged with usual care; and the proportion who had colorectal screening increased from 0.39 to 0.63 with the intervention and from 0.39 to 0.50 with usual care. The difference in the change in screening rates between groups was 0.12 for mammography (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.19), 0.07 for Papanicolaou testing (CI, 0.01 to 0.12), and 0.13 for colorectal screening (CI, 0.07 to 0.19). The proportion of women who were up to date for 3 tests increased from 0.21 to 0.43 with the intervention. LIMITATIONS: Participants were from 1 city and had access to a regular source of care. Medical records may not have captured all cancer screenings. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone support can improve cancer screening rates among women who visit community and migrant health centers. The intervention seems to be well suited to health plans, large medical groups, and other organizations that seek to increase cancer screening rates and to address disparities in care.
Authors: Gbenga Ogedegbe; Andrea N Cassells; Christina M Robinson; Katherine DuHamel; Jonathan N Tobin; Carol H Sox; Allen J Dietrich Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Richard G Roetzheim; Lisa K Christman; Paul B Jacobsen; Jennifer Schroeder; Rania Abdulla; Seft Hunter Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2005 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Elizabeth Ward; Alicia Samuels; Ram C Tiwari; Asma Ghafoor; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Robert M Saywell; Victoria L Champion; Celette Sugg Skinner; Usha Menon; Joanne Daggy Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Eduardo J Simoes; Sergio Mariotti; Alessandra Rossi; Alicia Heim; Felipe Lobello; Ali H Mokdad; Emanuele Scafato Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Jason Q Purnell; Matthew W Kreuter; Katherine S Eddens; Kurt M Ribisl; Peggy Hannon; Rebecca S Williams; Maria E Fernandez; David Jobe; Susan Gemmel; Marti Morris; Debbie Fagin Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2012-05
Authors: David M Mosen; Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy Perrin; A Gabriela Rosales; David H Smith; Elizabeth G Liles; Jennifer L Schneider; Jennifer E Lafata; Ronald E Myers; Michael Kositch; Thomas Hickey; Russell E Glasgow Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; William M Vollmer; Amanda Petrik; Stephen H Taplin; Timothy E Burdick; Richard T Meenan; Beverly B Green Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-06-14 Impact factor: 2.226