BACKGROUND: Several factors can influence access to population breast cancer screening. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of different information approaches, women's socio-demographic characteristics and organizational factors on mammography screening uptake. METHODS: We selected 5744 women aged 40-45 years who were randomly assigned to be given letters with: (i) a pre-fixed appointment plus standard leaflet (Group 1); (ii) a pre-fixed appointment plus a more comprehensive booklet (Group 2); (iii) point (ii) plus the offer of a counselling session (Group 3); and (iv) an invitation to contact the centre to get information and arrange participation (Group 4). RESULTS:Ninety-five women were excluded before the invitation and 5649 were randomized. After excluding undelivered letters (n = 41) and women reporting an exclusion criterion following our invitation (n = 248), the final eligible population was 5360 women. Participation rates following the first contact were 36.5, 39.9, 35.8 and 16.5% for Groups 1-4, respectively. The rates increased to 40.9, 43.6, 40.1 and 35.1% after the reminder letters. Women receiving more complete information had a higher uptake (Group 2), although not statistically significant. Differences among the four groups were maintained by controlling the effect of socio-demographic and attendance determinants. Regardless of intervention, participation was higher among married, higher educated, white-collared women, those born in northern Italy, living closer to the screening unit and with a female-collaborative doctor. CONCLUSION: Invitation letters with a fixed appointment correlate with a higher attendance rate. Providing women with more information on procedures, risks and benefits of mammography screening does not modify their participation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Several factors can influence access to population breast cancer screening. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of different information approaches, women's socio-demographic characteristics and organizational factors on mammography screening uptake. METHODS: We selected 5744 women aged 40-45 years who were randomly assigned to be given letters with: (i) a pre-fixed appointment plus standard leaflet (Group 1); (ii) a pre-fixed appointment plus a more comprehensive booklet (Group 2); (iii) point (ii) plus the offer of a counselling session (Group 3); and (iv) an invitation to contact the centre to get information and arrange participation (Group 4). RESULTS: Ninety-five women were excluded before the invitation and 5649 were randomized. After excluding undelivered letters (n = 41) and women reporting an exclusion criterion following our invitation (n = 248), the final eligible population was 5360 women. Participation rates following the first contact were 36.5, 39.9, 35.8 and 16.5% for Groups 1-4, respectively. The rates increased to 40.9, 43.6, 40.1 and 35.1% after the reminder letters. Women receiving more complete information had a higher uptake (Group 2), although not statistically significant. Differences among the four groups were maintained by controlling the effect of socio-demographic and attendance determinants. Regardless of intervention, participation was higher among married, higher educated, white-collared women, those born in northern Italy, living closer to the screening unit and with a female-collaborative doctor. CONCLUSION: Invitation letters with a fixed appointment correlate with a higher attendance rate. Providing women with more information on procedures, risks and benefits of mammography screening does not modify their participation.
Authors: Elisabeth Gummersbach; Jürgen in der Schmitten; Achim Mortsiefer; Heinz-Harald Abholz; Karl Wegscheider; Michael Pentzek Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Janet Jull; Sascha Köpke; Maureen Smith; Meg Carley; Jeanette Finderup; Anne C Rahn; Laura Boland; Sandra Dunn; Andrew A Dwyer; Jürgen Kasper; Simone Maria Kienlin; France Légaré; Krystina B Lewis; Anne Lyddiatt; Claudia Rutherford; Junqiang Zhao; Tamara Rader; Ian D Graham; Dawn Stacey Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-11-08
Authors: Prue C Allgood; Roberta Maroni; Sue Hudson; Judith Offman; Anne E Turnbull; Lesley Peacock; Jim Steel; Geraldine Kirby; Christine E Ingram; Julie Somers; Clare Fuller; Anthony G Threlfall; Rhian Gabe; Anthony J Maxwell; Julietta Patnick; Stephen W Duffy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jose Maria Montero-Moraga; Margarita Posso; Marta Román; Andrea Burón; Maria Sala; Xavier Castells; Francesc Macià Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-07-03 Impact factor: 3.295