Anupam Goel1, Julie George, Robert C Burack. 1. Medical Group Quality, Safety and Decision Support, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA 92103, USA. angoel@ucsd.edu
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:Mammography can reduce breast cancer mortality through routine screening. We tested an intervention to increase re-screening in a county program. METHODS: The program requires enrollment before screening. We randomized women who had previously been screened by the program to a telephone call reminder for re-enrollment or usual care (postcard reminder). We followed re-enrollment and re-screening rates for both groups. RESULTS: Compared with the control group (n=610), women in the intervention group (n=599) had higher rates of initial re-enrollment at one month (10% vs. 24%, p<.001) and re-screening at two months (11% vs. 19%, p<.001). These effects persisted over time (five-month re-enrollment: 24% vs. 35%, p<.001; six-month re-screening: 23% vs. 31%, p=.004). The intervention did not alter the odds of a woman's being re-screened once re-enrolled. CONCLUSION: The increase in our re-screening rate after this simple intervention was as great or greater than the rates reported in other studies. A telephone reminder for women previously enrolled in a county breast screening program can increase re-enrollment and subsequent re-screening rates.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Mammography can reduce breast cancer mortality through routine screening. We tested an intervention to increase re-screening in a county program. METHODS: The program requires enrollment before screening. We randomized women who had previously been screened by the program to a telephone call reminder for re-enrollment or usual care (postcard reminder). We followed re-enrollment and re-screening rates for both groups. RESULTS: Compared with the control group (n=610), women in the intervention group (n=599) had higher rates of initial re-enrollment at one month (10% vs. 24%, p<.001) and re-screening at two months (11% vs. 19%, p<.001). These effects persisted over time (five-month re-enrollment: 24% vs. 35%, p<.001; six-month re-screening: 23% vs. 31%, p=.004). The intervention did not alter the odds of a woman's being re-screened once re-enrolled. CONCLUSION: The increase in our re-screening rate after this simple intervention was as great or greater than the rates reported in other studies. A telephone reminder for women previously enrolled in a county breast screening program can increase re-enrollment and subsequent re-screening rates.
Authors: Steven J Atlas; Richard W Grant; William T Lester; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Yuchiao Chang; Michael J Barry; Henry C Chueh Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Terry C Davis; Connie L Arnold; Charles L Bennett; Michael S Wolf; Dachao Liu; Alfred Rademaker Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2015-02-18 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Garth H Rauscher; Anne Marie Murphy; Jennifer M Orsi; Danielle M Dupuy; Paula M Grabler; Christine B Weldon Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jessica T DeFrank; Barbara K Rimer; Jennifer M Gierisch; J Michael Bowling; David Farrell; Celette S Skinner Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-04-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy Perrin; A Gabriela Rosales; Jennifer Schneider; Mary M Rix; Kara Keels; Stephanie Schoap; Russell E Glasgow Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 5.043
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