Literature DB >> 16681329

Recruitment to mammography screening: a randomised trial and meta-analysis of invitation letters and telephone calls.

Andrew Page1, Stephen Morrell, Clayton Chiu, Richard Taylor, Richard Tewson.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16681329     DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2006.tb00101.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust N Z J Public Health        ISSN: 1326-0200            Impact factor:   2.939


  9 in total

1.  Strategies for increasing mammography screening in primary care in Chile: results of a randomized clinical trial.

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

2.  Implementation and process evaluation of three interventions to promote screening mammograms delivered for 4 years in a large primary care population.

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

Review 3.  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 4.  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

5.  Evaluating the impact of public health initiatives on trends in fecal occult blood test participation in Ontario.

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

Review 6.  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

Review 7.  Methods to increase participation in organised screening programs: a systematic review.

Authors:  Laura Camilloni; Eliana Ferroni; Beatriz Jimenez Cendales; Annamaria Pezzarossi; Giacomo Furnari; Piero Borgia; Gabriella Guasticchi; Paolo Giorgi Rossi
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 3.295

8.  Optimizing recruitment to a prostate cancer surveillance program among male BRCA1 mutation carriers: invitation by mail or by telephone.

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

9.  Determinants of Population-Based Cancer Screening Performance at Primary Healthcare Institutions in China.

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

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.