BACKGROUND: Our previous three-arm comparative effectiveness intervention in community clinic patients who were not up-to-date with screening resulted inmammography 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.
RCT Entities:
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.
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
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
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: 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
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