Literature DB >> 25692910

Sustaining mammography screening among the medically underserved: a follow-up evaluation.

Terry C Davis1, Connie L Arnold, Charles L Bennett, Michael S Wolf, Dachao Liu, Alfred Rademaker.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Our previous three-arm comparative effectiveness intervention in community clinic patients who were not up-to-date with screening resulted in mammography rates over 50% in all arms.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the three interventions on improving biennial screening rates among eligible patients.
METHODS: A three-arm quasi-experimental evaluation was conducted in eight community clinics from 2008 to 2011. Screening efforts included (1) enhanced care: Participants received an in-person recommendation from a research assistant (RA) in year 1, and clinics followed usual clinic protocol for scheduling screening mammograms; (2) education intervention: Participants received education and in-person recommendation from an RA in year 1, and clinics followed usual clinic protocol for scheduling mammograms; or (3) nurse support: A nurse manager provided in-person education and recommendation, scheduled mammograms, and followed up with phone support. In all arms, mammography was offered at no cost to uninsured patients.
RESULTS: Of 624 eligible women, biennial mammography within 24-30 months of their previous test was performed for 11.0% of women in the enhanced-care arm, 7.1% in the education- intervention arm, and 48.0% in the nurse-support arm (p<0.0001). The incremental cost was $1,232 per additional woman undergoing screening with nurse support vs. enhanced care and $1,092 with nurse support vs. education.
CONCLUSIONS: Biennial mammography screening rates were improved by providing nurse support but not with enhanced care or education. However, this approach was not cost-effective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25692910      PMCID: PMC4394885          DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2014.4967

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)        ISSN: 1540-9996            Impact factor:   2.681


  30 in total

Review 1.  Repeat mammography: prevalence estimates and considerations for assessment.

Authors:  Melissa A Clark; William Rakowski; Laura B Bonacore
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2003-12

2.  Prevalence and correlates of repeat mammography among women aged 55-79 in the Year 2000 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  William Rakowski; Nancy Breen; Helen Meissner; Barbara K Rimer; Sally W Vernon; Melissa A Clark; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.018

3.  Knowledge and attitude on screening mammography among low-literate, low-income women.

Authors:  T C Davis; C Arnold; H J Berkel; I Nandy; R H Jackson; J Glass
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1996-11-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Adherence of low-income women to cancer screening recommendations.

Authors:  Ann S O'Malley; Christopher B Forrest; Jeanne Mandelblatt
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Social learning theory and the Health Belief Model.

Authors:  I M Rosenstock; V J Strecher; M H Becker
Journal:  Health Educ Q       Date:  1988

6.  Mammography-facility-based patient reminders and repeat mammograms for Medicare in New York State.

Authors:  John Quinley; Terry Mahotière; Catherine R Messina; Ti-Kuang Lee; Claudia Mikail
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 4.018

7.  Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: a shortened screening instrument.

Authors:  T C Davis; S W Long; R H Jackson; E J Mayeaux; R B George; P W Murphy; M A Crouch
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 1.756

8.  Health promotion by social cognitive means.

Authors:  Albert Bandura
Journal:  Health Educ Behav       Date:  2004-04

9.  On-schedule mammography rescreening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

Authors:  Janet Kay Bobo; Jean A Shapiro; Jane Schulman; Charles L Wolters
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Impact of mailed and automated telephone reminders on receipt of repeat mammograms: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jessica T DeFrank; Barbara K Rimer; Jennifer M Gierisch; J Michael Bowling; David Farrell; Celette S Skinner
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2009-04-11       Impact factor: 5.043

View more
  3 in total

1.  Multilevel Intervention Raises Latina Participation in Mammography Screening: Findings from ¡Fortaleza Latina!

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

2.  Economics of Multicomponent Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Review.

Authors:  Giridhar Mohan; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Donatus U Ekwueme; Susan A Sabatino; Devon L Okasako-Schmucker; Yinan Peng; Shawna L Mercer; Anilkrishna B Thota
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2019-08-30       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  Assessment of Oral Chemotherapy Nonadherence in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients Using Brief Measures in Community Cancer Clinics: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Terry C Davis; Connie L Arnold; Glenn Mills; Glenn J Lesser; W Mark Brown; Richard Schulz; Kathryn E Weaver; Pamala A Pawloski
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-10-21       Impact factor: 4.614

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.