OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of three recruitment strategies to encourage women to attend for an initial mammography screen, and to compare results with similar service studies. Interventions were: (1) an invitation letter; (2) two invitation letters; and (3) an invitation letter plus a follow-up telephone call. METHODS:All women aged 50-54 years in two BreastScreen New South Wales (BSNSW) Screening and Assessment Service catchment areas (n=3,144) were recruited from the Australian Electoral Roll and randomised to the four groups. Response rates for each intervention were compared relative to standard practice (one invitation letter) at 12-weeks follow-up. Marginal cost-effectiveness for each condition was calculated. Other similar randomised trials were also meta-analysed. RESULTS: The screening rate for two letters was 8.5% (OR=1.61, 95% CI 1.08-2.40) and 7.8% (OR=1.46, 95% CI 0.97-2.18) for one letter plus a telephone call, compared with 5.5% for standard practice (one letter) (OR=1.00). The response rate in the one letter plus a phone call group was 13.3% (OR=2.65, 95% CI 1.76-4.00) for women where a phone number was located. CONCLUSION:Initial screening rates after a 12-week follow-up were significantly higher in the women receiving a second invitation letter, compared with standard practice (one letter). Marginal cost-effectiveness favoured the two-letter approach. IMPLICATIONS: A follow-up invitation letter is more cost-effective than one invitation letter plus a follow-up telephone call in the BSNSW program. However, an invitation letter plus follow-up phone call is more cost-effective in recruiting women to BSNSW only if a phone number is located.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of three recruitment strategies to encourage women to attend for an initial mammography screen, and to compare results with similar service studies. Interventions were: (1) an invitation letter; (2) two invitation letters; and (3) an invitation letter plus a follow-up telephone call. METHODS: All women aged 50-54 years in two BreastScreen New South Wales (BSNSW) Screening and Assessment Service catchment areas (n=3,144) were recruited from the Australian Electoral Roll and randomised to the four groups. Response rates for each intervention were compared relative to standard practice (one invitation letter) at 12-weeks follow-up. Marginal cost-effectiveness for each condition was calculated. Other similar randomised trials were also meta-analysed. RESULTS: The screening rate for two letters was 8.5% (OR=1.61, 95% CI 1.08-2.40) and 7.8% (OR=1.46, 95% CI 0.97-2.18) for one letter plus a telephone call, compared with 5.5% for standard practice (one letter) (OR=1.00). The response rate in the one letter plus a phone call group was 13.3% (OR=2.65, 95% CI 1.76-4.00) for women where a phone number was located. CONCLUSION: Initial screening rates after a 12-week follow-up were significantly higher in the women receiving a second invitation letter, compared with standard practice (one letter). Marginal cost-effectiveness favoured the two-letter approach. IMPLICATIONS: A follow-up invitation letter is more cost-effective than one invitation letter plus a follow-up telephone call in the BSNSW program. However, an invitation letter plus follow-up phone call is more cost-effective in recruiting women to BSNSW only if a phone number is located.
Authors: Klaus Püschel; Gloria Coronado; Gabriela Soto; Karla Gonzalez; Javiera Martinez; Sarah Holte; Beti Thompson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Roger Luckmann; Mary Jo White; Mary E Costanza; Christine F Frisard; Caroline Cranos; Susan Sama; Robert Yood Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 3.046
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
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
Authors: Gladys N Honein-AbouHaidar; Linda Rabeneck; Lawrence F Paszat; Rinku Sutradhar; Jill Tinmouth; Nancy N Baxter Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Anna Galor; Cezary Cybulski; Jan Lubiński; Steven A Narod; Jacek Gronwald Journal: Hered Cancer Clin Pract Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 2.857
Authors: Senshuang Zheng; Xiaorui Zhang; Marcel J W Greuter; Geertruida H de Bock; Wenli Lu Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 3.390