Literature DB >> 19105686

Mammography screening after risk-tailored messages: the women improving screening through education and risk assessment (WISER) randomized, controlled trial.

Joann Bodurtha1, John M Quillin, Kelly A Tracy, Joseph Borzelleca, Donna McClish, Diane Baer Wilson, Resa M Jones, Julie Quillin, Deborah Bowen.   

Abstract

AIMS: A randomized trial investigated the impact of risk-tailored messages on mammography in diverse women in the Virginia Commonwealth University Health System's gynecology clinics.
METHODS: From 2003 to 2005, 899 patients > or =40 years of age were randomized to receive risk-tailored information or general information about breast health. Multiple logistic regression analyses summarize their breast health practices at 18 months.
RESULTS: At baseline, 576 (64%) women reported having a mammogram in the past year. At 18-month follow-up, mammography rates were 72.6% in the intervention group and 74.2% in the control group (N.S.). Women (n = 123) who reported worrying about breast cancer "often" or "all the time" had significantly higher mammography rates with the intervention (85.0%) vs. the controls (63.5%). No significant differences existed in clinical breast examination, self-examination, or mammography intentions between the two study arms. However, intervention women with lower education reported significantly fewer clinical breast examinations at follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: The brief intervention with a risk-tailored message did not have a significant effect overall on screening at 18 months. However, among those who worried, mammography rates in the intervention group were higher. Individual characteristics, such as worry about breast cancer and education status, may impact interventions to improve breast cancer prevention practices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19105686      PMCID: PMC2945922          DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2007.0703

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)        ISSN: 1540-9996            Impact factor:   2.681


  30 in total

Review 1.  Clinical inquiries. Are breast self-exams or clinical exams effective for screening breast cancer?

Authors:  Sean Gaskie; Joan Nashelsky
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 0.493

2.  Assessing breast cancer risk: evolution of the Gail Model.

Authors:  Melissa L Bondy; Lisa A Newman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-09-06       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Facilitating informed decision making about breast cancer risk and genetic counseling among women calling the NCI's Cancer Information Service.

Authors:  Suzanne M Miller; Linda Fleisher; Pagona Roussi; Joanne S Buzaglo; Robert Schnoll; Elyse Slater; Susan Raysor; Melania Popa-Mabe
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2005

Review 4.  Reported drop in mammography : is this cause for concern?

Authors:  Nancy Breen; Kathleen A Cronin; Helen I Meissner; Stephen H Taplin; Florence K Tangka; Jasmin A Tiro; Timothy S McNeel
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-06-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 5.  Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.

Authors:  A G K Edwards; R Evans; J Dundon; S Haigh; K Hood; G J Elwyn
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-10-18

6.  The Health Belief Model and prediction of dietary compliance: a field experiment.

Authors:  M H Becker; L A Maiman; J P Kirscht; D P Haefner; R H Drachman
Journal:  J Health Soc Behav       Date:  1977-12

7.  Women's misconceptions about cancer screening: implications for informed decision-making.

Authors:  Thomas D Denberg; Sabrina Wong; Angela Beattie
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2005-06

8.  Validation of a self-administered, computerized tool for collecting and displaying the family history of cancer.

Authors:  Louise S Acheson; Stephen J Zyzanski; Kurt C Stange; Amy Deptowicz; Georgia L Wiesner
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-11-06       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 9.  Screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Katrina Armstrong; Constance D Lehman; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Factors associated with an individual's decision to withdraw from genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: implications for counseling.

Authors:  Béatrice Godard; Annabelle Pratte; Martine Dumont; Adèle Simard-Lebrun; Jacques Simard
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2007
View more
  9 in total

1.  Intervention tailoring for Chinese American women: comparing the effects of two videos on knowledge, attitudes and intentions to obtain a mammogram.

Authors:  Judy Huei-yu Wang; Marc D Schwartz; George Luta; Annette E Maxwell; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2012-02-10

Review 2.  Tailored interactive multimedia computer programs to reduce health disparities: opportunities and challenges.

Authors:  Anthony Jerant; Nancy Sohler; Kevin Fiscella; Becca Franks; Peter Franks
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2010-12-13

Review 3.  Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.

Authors:  Adrian G K Edwards; Gurudutt Naik; Harry Ahmed; Glyn J Elwyn; Timothy Pickles; Kerry Hood; Rebecca Playle
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-02-28

4.  Randomized trial of DVD, telephone, and usual care for increasing mammography adherence.

Authors:  Victoria L Champion; Susan M Rawl; Sara A Bourff; Kristen M Champion; Lisa G Smith; Adam H Buchanan; Laura J Fish; Patrick O Monahan; Timothy E Stump; Jeffery K Springston; Wambui G Gathirua-Mwangi; Celette Sugg Skinner
Journal:  J Health Psychol       Date:  2014-07-28

Review 5.  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 6.  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

7.  A Systematic Review of the Effect of Individualized Risk Communication Strategies on Screening Uptake and Its Psychological Predictors: The Role of Psychology Theory.

Authors:  Kathryn Bould; Blanaid Daly; Stephen Dunne; Suzanne Scott; Koula Asimakopoulou
Journal:  Health Psychol Res       Date:  2016-12-09

Review 8.  Effect of interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information on intentions and behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Juliet A Usher-Smith; Barbora Silarova; Stephen J Sharp; Katie Mills; Simon J Griffin
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 9.  Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers.

Authors:  Lyndal J Trevena; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Adrian Edwards; Wolfgang Gaissmaier; Mirta Galesic; Paul K J Han; John King; Margaret L Lawson; Suzanne K Linder; Isaac Lipkus; Elissa Ozanne; Ellen Peters; Danielle Timmermans; Steven Woloshin
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-11-29       Impact factor: 2.796

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.