OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of a minimal cost and involvement educational intervention in improving women's knowledge about screening mammography and to explore patient perceptions of the educational intervention. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: During the study period (March 10, 2005, to July 1, 2005), 1446 participants in the Mayo Mammography Health Study scheduled for a mammogram within 4 weeks at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn, were randomized to 2 study groups and mailed surveys about mammograms. The 2 groups received separate surveys; both surveys contained knowledge-based questions about mammography, but the educational intervention group survey also contained qualitative questions that assessed the educational pamphlets. RESULTS: Of the 668 surveys returned (responders), 248 (34.4%) were from the control group, and 420 (58.3%) were from the intervention group. Approximately 80% of responders had had more than 7 prior mammograms. Significant increases in knowledge about mammography were found in the educational intervention compared with the control group on questions regarding age to begin screening mammography (67.9% vs 54.4%; P < .001), recommended frequency of mammograms (86.4% vs 75.4%; P < .001), overall reduction in mortality due to screening mammography (55.2% vs 8.9%; P < .001), and proportions of women who required follow-up mammograms (35.5% vs 14.9%; P < .001) or biopsy (59.5% vs 13.3%; P < .001). Qualitative data results indicated that most women who received the educational intervention found the pamphlets helpful and informative despite having had many previous mammograms. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that providing women scheduled for screening mammograms with physician-approved educational material before their appointment significantly increases knowledge about screening mammography, risks and benefits, and possible follow-up.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of a minimal cost and involvement educational intervention in improving women's knowledge about screening mammography and to explore patient perceptions of the educational intervention. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: During the study period (March 10, 2005, to July 1, 2005), 1446 participants in the Mayo Mammography Health Study scheduled for a mammogram within 4 weeks at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn, were randomized to 2 study groups and mailed surveys about mammograms. The 2 groups received separate surveys; both surveys contained knowledge-based questions about mammography, but the educational intervention group survey also contained qualitative questions that assessed the educational pamphlets. RESULTS: Of the 668 surveys returned (responders), 248 (34.4%) were from the control group, and 420 (58.3%) were from the intervention group. Approximately 80% of responders had had more than 7 prior mammograms. Significant increases in knowledge about mammography were found in the educational intervention compared with the control group on questions regarding age to begin screening mammography (67.9% vs 54.4%; P < .001), recommended frequency of mammograms (86.4% vs 75.4%; P < .001), overall reduction in mortality due to screening mammography (55.2% vs 8.9%; P < .001), and proportions of women who required follow-up mammograms (35.5% vs 14.9%; P < .001) or biopsy (59.5% vs 13.3%; P < .001). Qualitative data results indicated that most women who received the educational intervention found the pamphlets helpful and informative despite having had many previous mammograms. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that providing women scheduled for screening mammograms with physician-approved educational material before their appointment significantly increases knowledge about screening mammography, risks and benefits, and possible follow-up.
Authors: Alan A Arslan; Kathy J Helzlsouer; Charles Kooperberg; Xiao-Ou Shu; Emily Steplowski; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Charles S Fuchs; Myron D Gross; Eric J Jacobs; Andrea Z Lacroix; Gloria M Petersen; Rachael Z Stolzenberg-Solomon; Wei Zheng; Demetrius Albanes; Laufey Amundadottir; William R Bamlet; Aurelio Barricarte; Sheila A Bingham; Heiner Boeing; Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault; Julie E Buring; Stephen J Chanock; Sandra Clipp; J Michael Gaziano; Edward L Giovannucci; Susan E Hankinson; Patricia Hartge; Robert N Hoover; David J Hunter; Amy Hutchinson; Kevin B Jacobs; Peter Kraft; Shannon M Lynch; Jonas Manjer; Joann E Manson; Anne McTiernan; Robert R McWilliams; Julie B Mendelsohn; Dominique S Michaud; Domenico Palli; Thomas E Rohan; Nadia Slimani; Gilles Thomas; Anne Tjønneland; Geoffrey S Tobias; Dimitrios Trichopoulos; Jarmo Virtamo; Brian M Wolpin; Kai Yu; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Alpa V Patel Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2010-05-10
Authors: José M Baena-Cañada; Petra Rosado-Varela; Inmaculada Expósito-Álvarez; Macarena González-Guerrero; Juan Nieto-Vera; Encarnación Benítez-Rodríguez Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Elena B Elkin; Valerie H Pocus; Alvin I Mushlin; Tessa Cigler; Coral L Atoria; Margaret M Polaneczky Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 2.796