OBJECTIVE: Reminder letters are effective at prompting women to schedule mammograms. Less well studied are reminders addressing multiple preventive service recommendations. We compared the effectiveness of a mammogram-specific reminder sent when a woman was due for a mammogram to a reminder letter addressing multiple preventive services and sent on a woman's birthday on mammography receipt. METHODS: The study included 48,583 women 52-74 years enrolled in Group Health Cooperative, a health plan in Washington State. From 2005 to 2009, women were mailed 88,605 mammogram-specific or birthday letters. In this one group pretest-posttest study, we modeled the odds of obtaining a screening mammogram after receiving a letter by reminder type using logistic regression, controlling for demographic and healthcare use characteristics and stratifying by whether women were overdue or up-to-date with mammography at the mailing. RESULTS: Among women up-to-date with screening, birthday letters were negatively associated with mammography receipt compared to mammogram-specific letters (birthday letters with 1-2 recommendations: OR=0.73; 95% CI:0.68-0.79; 3 recommendations: OR=0.74; 95% CI:0.69-0.78; 4-8 recommendations: OR=0.62 95% CI:0.55-0.68) after. Among overdue women, birthday letters with 4-8 recommendations were negatively associated with mammography receipt. CONCLUSIONS: Transitioning from mammogram-specific reminder letters to multiple preventive service birthday letters was associated with decreased mammography receipt.
OBJECTIVE: Reminder letters are effective at prompting women to schedule mammograms. Less well studied are reminders addressing multiple preventive service recommendations. We compared the effectiveness of a mammogram-specific reminder sent when a woman was due for a mammogram to a reminder letter addressing multiple preventive services and sent on a woman's birthday on mammography receipt. METHODS: The study included 48,583 women 52-74 years enrolled in Group Health Cooperative, a health plan in Washington State. From 2005 to 2009, women were mailed 88,605 mammogram-specific or birthday letters. In this one group pretest-posttest study, we modeled the odds of obtaining a screening mammogram after receiving a letter by reminder type using logistic regression, controlling for demographic and healthcare use characteristics and stratifying by whether women were overdue or up-to-date with mammography at the mailing. RESULTS: Among women up-to-date with screening, birthday letters were negatively associated with mammography receipt compared to mammogram-specific letters (birthday letters with 1-2 recommendations: OR=0.73; 95% CI:0.68-0.79; 3 recommendations: OR=0.74; 95% CI:0.69-0.78; 4-8 recommendations: OR=0.62 95% CI:0.55-0.68) after. Among overdue women, birthday letters with 4-8 recommendations were negatively associated with mammography receipt. CONCLUSIONS: Transitioning from mammogram-specific reminder letters to multiple preventive service birthday letters was associated with decreased mammography receipt.
Authors: Barbara Valanis; Evelyn E Whitlock; John Mullooly; Thomas Vogt; Sabina Smith; ChuHe Chen; Russell E Glasgow Journal: Prev Med Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Nasar U Ahmed; Gillian Haber; Kofi A Semenya; Margaret K Hargreaves Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-06-29 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: László Tabár; Bedrich Vitak; Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen; Amy Ming-Fang Yen; Anders Cohen; Tibor Tot; Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu; Sam Li-Sheng Chen; Jean Ching-Yuan Fann; Johan Rosell; Helena Fohlin; Robert A Smith; Stephen W Duffy Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jennifer M Gierisch; Jessica T DeFrank; J Michael Bowling; Barbara K Rimer; Jeanine M Matuszewski; David Farrell; Celette Sugg Skinner Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Heidi D Nelson; Kari Tyne; Arpana Naik; Christina Bougatsos; Benjamin K Chan; Linda Humphrey Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Susan D Brandzel; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Arika Wieneke; Susan Carol Bradford; Kilian Kimbel; Hongyuan Gao; Diana Sm Buist Journal: Perm J Date: 2017
Authors: Diana S M Buist; Hongyuan Gao; Melissa L Anderson; Tracy Onega; Susan Brandzel; Melissa A Rabelhofer; Susan Carol Bradford; Erin J Aiello Bowles Journal: Prev Med Date: 2017-06-24 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Shirley A A Beresford; Dale McLerran; Ricardo Jimenez; Donald L Patrick; India Ornelas; Sonia Bishop; John R Scheel; Beti Thompson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Erin J Aiello Bowles; Hongyuan Gao; Susan Brandzel; Susan Carol Bradford; Diana S M Buist Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 4.018