Literature DB >> 21746751

The impact of different communication and organizational strategies on mammography screening uptake in women aged 40-45 years.

Livia Giordano1, Valeria Stefanini, Carlo Senore, Alfonso Frigerio, Roberta Castagno, Vincenzo Marra, Marco Dalmasso, Marco Rosselli del Turco, Eugenio Paci, Nereo Segnan.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21746751     DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckr090

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Public Health        ISSN: 1101-1262            Impact factor:   3.367


  12 in total

1.  Willingness to participate in mammography screening: a randomized controlled questionnaire study of responses to two patient information leaflets with different factual content.

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

Review 2.  Interventions to improve adherence to surveillance guidelines in survivors of childhood cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Veda Zabih; Alyssa Kahane; Natalya E O'Neill; Noah Ivers; Paul C Nathan
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 4.442

Review 3.  Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.

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

4.  A randomised trial of the effect of postal reminders on attendance for breast screening.

Authors:  Prue C Allgood; Anthony J Maxwell; Sue Hudson; Judith Offman; Gillian Hutchison; Cathryn Beattie; Raquel Tuano-Donnelly; Anthony Threlfall; Tina Summersgill; Lesley Bellis; Collette Robinson; Samantha Heaton; Julietta Patnick; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  Scarce information about breast cancer screening: An Italian websites analysis.

Authors:  Francesco Attena; Mariagrazia Cancellieri; Concetta Paola Pelullo
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 1.889

6.  Does lack of resources impair access to breast and cervical cancer screening in Japan?

Authors:  Hiroshi Sano; Rei Goto; Chisato Hamashima
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-07-13       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Effect of second timed appointments for non-attenders of breast cancer screening in England: a randomised controlled trial.

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

8.  Effect of an information leaflet on breast cancer screening participation: A cluster randomized controlled trial.

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

9.  Rapid review of evaluation of interventions to improve participation in cancer screening services.

Authors:  Stephen W Duffy; Jonathan P Myles; Roberta Maroni; Abeera Mohammad
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 2.136

10.  Impact of invitation schemes on breast cancer screening coverage: A cohort study from Copenhagen, Denmark.

Authors:  Katja Kemp Jacobsen; My von Euler Chelpin; Ilse Vejborg; Elsebeth Lynge
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 2.136

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.