OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two reminding strategies addressed to women who did not respond to a first invitation to undergo cervical cancer screening. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized study was carried out by a programme created in Alsace to organize cervical cancer screening. In total, 10,662 women who did not have a smear test 1 year after a first notice was sent, were randomly allocated to receive either a new letter with a reply coupon or a telephone call. The uptake of screening was measured using routine data. Efficacy and direct costs of the two methods were compared. RESULTS: Uptake at 8 months was 6.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.6-7.0%] for telephone calls and 5.8% (95% CI 5.2-6.4%) for letters. The difference was not significant. More information was collected through telephone calls than by letters, but with less reliability. Furthermore, telephone calls were more costly. CONCLUSIONS: We found that in our region, a mail reminder was as effective as, and less expensive than, a telephone call; moreover, it was applicable to the whole population, including patients without a telephone.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two reminding strategies addressed to women who did not respond to a first invitation to undergo cervical cancer screening. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized study was carried out by a programme created in Alsace to organize cervical cancer screening. In total, 10,662 women who did not have a smear test 1 year after a first notice was sent, were randomly allocated to receive either a new letter with a reply coupon or a telephone call. The uptake of screening was measured using routine data. Efficacy and direct costs of the two methods were compared. RESULTS: Uptake at 8 months was 6.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.6-7.0%] for telephone calls and 5.8% (95% CI 5.2-6.4%) for letters. The difference was not significant. More information was collected through telephone calls than by letters, but with less reliability. Furthermore, telephone calls were more costly. CONCLUSIONS: We found that in our region, a mail reminder was as effective as, and less expensive than, a telephone call; moreover, it was applicable to the whole population, including patients without a telephone.
Authors: Jonah Musa; Chad J Achenbach; Linda C O'Dwyer; Charlesnika T Evans; Megan McHugh; Lifang Hou; Melissa A Simon; Robert L Murphy; Neil Jordan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marta Trapero-Bertran; Amelia Acera Pérez; Silvia de Sanjosé; Josep Maria Manresa Domínguez; Diego Rodríguez Capriles; Ana Rodriguez Martinez; Josep Maria Bonet Simó; Norman Sanchez Sanchez; Pablo Hidalgo Valls; Mireia Díaz Sanchis Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Justina Paulauskiene; Mindaugas Stelemekas; Rugile Ivanauskiene; Janina Petkeviciene Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 3.390