Literature DB >> 19362800

Impact of mailed and automated telephone reminders on receipt of repeat mammograms: a randomized controlled trial.

Jessica T DeFrank1, Barbara K Rimer, Jennifer M Gierisch, J Michael Bowling, David Farrell, Celette S Skinner.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study compares the efficacy of three types of reminders in promoting annual repeat mammography screening.
DESIGN: RCT. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Study recruitment occurred in 2004-2005. Participants were recruited through the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees. All were aged 40-75 years and had a screening mammogram prior to study enrollment. A total of 3547 women completed baseline telephone interviews. INTERVENTION: Prior to study recruitment, women were assigned randomly to one of three reminder groups: (1) printed enhanced usual care reminders (EUCRs); (2) automated telephone reminders (ATRs) identical in content to EUCRs; or (3) enhanced letter reminders that included additional information guided by behavioral theory. Interventions were delivered 2-3 months prior to women's mammography due dates. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Repeat mammography adherence, defined as having a mammogram no sooner than 10 months and no later than 14 months after the enrollment mammogram.
RESULTS: Each intervention produced adherence proportions that ranged from 72% to 76%. Post-intervention adherence rates increased by an absolute 17.8% from baseline. Women assigned to ATRs were significantly more likely to have had mammograms than women assigned to EUCRs (p=0.014). Comparisons of reminder efficacy did not vary across key subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: Although all reminders were effective in promoting repeat mammography adherence, ATRs were the most effective and lowest in cost. Health organizations should consider using ATRs to maximize proportions of members who receive mammograms at annual intervals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19362800      PMCID: PMC2698939          DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Prev Med        ISSN: 0749-3797            Impact factor:   5.043


  53 in total

1.  How consistently do women report lifetime mammograms at successive interviews?

Authors:  Garth H Rauscher; Michael S O'Malley; Jo Anne L Earp
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 5.043

2.  The effectiveness of interventions to promote mammography among women with historically lower rates of screening.

Authors:  Julie Legler; Helen I Meissner; Cathy Coyne; Nancy Breen; Veronica Chollette; Barbara K Rimer
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Initial and repeat mammography screening: different behaviors/different predictors.

Authors:  Linda Mayne; JoAnne Earp
Journal:  J Rural Health       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.333

4.  Effects of a mammography decision-making intervention at 12 and 24 months.

Authors:  Barbara K Rimer; Susan Halabi; Celette Sugg Skinner; Isaac M Lipkus; Tara S Strigo; Ellen B Kaplan; Gregory P Samsa
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 5.043

5.  Factors associated with repeat mammography screening.

Authors:  S Halabi; C S Skinner; G P Samsa; T S Strigo; Y S Crawford; B K Rimer
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 0.493

6.  The pattern of breast cancer screening utilization and its consequences.

Authors:  James Michaelson; Sameer Satija; Richard Moore; Griffin Weber; Elkan Halpern; Andrew Garland; Dhruv Puri; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2002-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction.

Authors:  C Nass; K M Lee
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl       Date:  2001-09

8.  Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Linda L Humphrey; Mark Helfand; Benjamin K S Chan; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Participant reactions to a computerized telephone system for nutrition and exercise counseling.

Authors:  Karen Glanz; Dorothy Shigaki; Ramesh Farzanfar; Bernardine Pinto; Bonnie Kaplan; Robert H Friedman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2003-02

Review 10.  Patient acceptance of educational voice messages: a review of controlled clinical studies.

Authors:  S Krishna; E A Balas; S A Boren; N Maglaveras
Journal:  Methods Inf Med       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.176

View more
  28 in total

Review 1.  Interventions to promote repeat breast cancer screening with mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sally W Vernon; Amy McQueen; Jasmin A Tiro; Deborah J del Junco
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-06-29       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  A cluster-randomized trial of a primary care informatics-based system for breast cancer screening.

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

3.  Prioritization of evidence-based preventive health services during periodic health examinations.

Authors:  Deirdre A Shires; Kurt C Stange; George Divine; Scott Ratliff; Ronak Vashi; Ming Tai-Seale; Jennifer Elston Lafata
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  Effects of a Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Repeat Mammography Screening in Iranian Women.

Authors:  Parvaneh Taymoori; Yamile Molina; Daem Roshani
Journal:  Cancer Nurs       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.592

5.  It's the amount of thought that counts: when ambivalence contributes to mammography screening delay.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Isaac M Lipkus; Jennifer M Gierisch; Barbara K Rimer; J Michael Bowling
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2011-11-03

6.  Longitudinal predictors of nonadherence to maintenance of mammography.

Authors:  Jennifer M Gierisch; Jo Anne Earp; Noel T Brewer; Barbara K Rimer
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Preventing Diagnostic Errors in Ambulatory Care: An Electronic Notification Tool for Incomplete Radiology Tests.

Authors:  Saul N Weingart; Omar Yaghi; Liz Barnhart; Sucharita Kher; John Mazzullo; Kari Roberts; Eric Lominac; Nancy Gittelson; Philip Argyris; William Harvey
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.342

8.  Counseling patients on facial volume replacement and adherence with posttreatment instructions.

Authors:  Doris Day
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2010-09-07       Impact factor: 2.711

Review 9.  Automated alerts and reminders targeting patients: A review of the literature.

Authors:  Seneca Perri-Moore; Seraphine Kapsandoy; Katherine Doyon; Brent Hill; Melissa Archer; Laura Shane-McWhorter; Bruce E Bray; Qing Zeng-Treitler
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2015-12-21

10.  Breast cancer screening in an insured population: whom are we missing?

Authors:  Karin L Kempe; Rebecca Sam Larson; Susan Shetterley; Andra Wilkinson
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2013
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.