Nasar U Ahmed1, Gillian Haber, Kofi A Semenya, Margaret K Hargreaves. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, HLS 588, Miami, FL 33199, USA. ahmedn@fiu.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The expectation that insurance coverage mitigates health disparities and equalizes use of healthcare assumes that services are equally accessed; however, the insured low-income target population in this research had a mammography rate of 23.4%, well below the general population. Our objective was to determine the most effective intervention to improve mammography use in low-income women insured by a managed care organization (MCO). METHODS: The study was a randomized controlled trial. Participants were 2,357 women noncompliant with screening mammography randomly assigned to one of three groups: control (n = 786) received usual care; simple intervention (n = 785) received prompt letter from the MCO medical director; and stepwise intervention (n = 786) received the same prompt letter from the MCO; if noncompliant, a second prompt letter from their primary care physician and, if still noncompliant, counseling from lay health workers. Outcome was completion of screening mammography extracted from medical records. RESULTS:Screening rates were 13.4% for the control, 16.1% for the simple intervention, and 27.1% for the stepwise intervention. Compared with the control, the primary care physician letter in the stepwise intervention increased the likelihood of screening by 80% [Relative Risk (RR) = 1.80; P < 0.001], and counseling tripled the likelihood of screening (RR = 3.11; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the control and simple intervention, a stepwise intervention to increase mammography is effective in a target population of hard-to-reach, low-income, insured women. IMPACT: The research provides evidence for the impact of stepwise interventions to improve cancer screening in low-income insured populations, although the screening rates remain well below those of the general population.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The expectation that insurance coverage mitigates health disparities and equalizes use of healthcare assumes that services are equally accessed; however, the insured low-income target population in this research had a mammography rate of 23.4%, well below the general population. Our objective was to determine the most effective intervention to improve mammography use in low-income women insured by a managed care organization (MCO). METHODS: The study was a randomized controlled trial. Participants were 2,357 women noncompliant with screening mammography randomly assigned to one of three groups: control (n = 786) received usual care; simple intervention (n = 785) received prompt letter from the MCO medical director; and stepwise intervention (n = 786) received the same prompt letter from the MCO; if noncompliant, a second prompt letter from their primary care physician and, if still noncompliant, counseling from lay health workers. Outcome was completion of screening mammography extracted from medical records. RESULTS: Screening rates were 13.4% for the control, 16.1% for the simple intervention, and 27.1% for the stepwise intervention. Compared with the control, the primary care physician letter in the stepwise intervention increased the likelihood of screening by 80% [Relative Risk (RR) = 1.80; P < 0.001], and counseling tripled the likelihood of screening (RR = 3.11; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the control and simple intervention, a stepwise intervention to increase mammography is effective in a target population of hard-to-reach, low-income, insured women. IMPACT: The research provides evidence for the impact of stepwise interventions to improve cancer screening in low-income insured populations, although the screening rates remain well below those of the general population.
Authors: Kathryn Cardarelli; Rachael Jackson; Marcus Martin; Kim Linnear; Roy Lopez; Charles Senteio; Preston Weaver; Anna Hill; Jesse Banda; Marva Epperson-Brown; Janet Morrison; Deborah Parrish; J R Newton; Marcene Royster; Sheila Haley; Camille Lafayette; Phyllis Harris; Jamboor K Vishwanatha; Eric S Johnson Journal: Prog Community Health Partnersh Date: 2011
Authors: Kyounghae Kim; Janet S Choi; Eunsuk Choi; Carrie L Nieman; Jin Hui Joo; Frank R Lin; Laura N Gitlin; Hae-Ra Han Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Peter C Raich; Elizabeth M Whitley; William Thorland; Patricia Valverde; Diane Fairclough Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Kevin Fiscella; Elizabeth Whitley; Samantha Hendren; Peter Raich; Sharon Humiston; Paul Winters; Pascal Jean-Pierre; Patricia Valverde; William Thorland; Ronald Epstein Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Samantha Hendren; Paul Winters; Sharon Humiston; Amna Idris; Shirley X L Li; Patricia Ford; Raymond Specht; Stephen Marcus; Michael Mendoza; Kevin Fiscella Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 5.128