Julie A Chambers1, Kerry Gracie2, Rosemary Millar3, Julie Cavanagh3, Debbie Archibald4, Alan Cook5, Ronan E O'Carroll2. 1. Psychology, School of Natural Sciences, Stirling University, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK j.a.chambers@stir.ac.uk. 2. Psychology, School of Natural Sciences, Stirling University, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK. 3. Directorate of Public Health, Tayside NHS Board, Kings Cross, Clepington Rd, Dundee DD3 8EA, UK. 4. East of Scotland Breast Screening Service, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK. 5. Department of Radiology, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a brief telephone support intervention could increase breast cancer screening uptake among lower socio-demographic women in Scotland, via eliciting and addressing barriers to screening attendance. METHODS: In a pilot randomized controlled trial, participants receiving a reminder letter for a missed screening appointment (February-June 2014) were randomized to four arms: No telephone call (control), Simple telephone reminder (TEL), Telephone support (TEL-SUPP), or Telephone support plus anticipated regret (TEL-SUPP-AR). Primary outcomes were making an appointment and attending breast screening. RESULTS: Of 856 women randomized and analysed on intention-to-treat basis, compared with controls, more women in the telephone intervention groups made an appointment (control: 8.8%, TEL: 20.3%, TEL-SUPP: 14.1%; TEL-SUPP-AR: 16.8%, χ(2)(3) = 12.0, p = .007) and attended breast screening (control: 6.9%, TEL: 16.5%, TEL-SUPP: 11.3%; TEL-SUPP-AR: 13.1%, χ(2)(3) = 9.8, p = .020). Of 559 women randomized to the three telephone groups, 404 were successfully contacted and 247 participated in the intervention. Intervention participants (ie. per protocol analysis) were more likely to make (17% versus 10%, χ(2)(1) = 7.0, p = .008) and attend (13% versus 7%, χ(2)(1) = 5.5, p = .019) an appointment than non-participants, but there were no differences in attendance between the three telephone groups. CONCLUSIONS: A simple telephone reminder doubled attendance at breast screening in women from lower socio-demographic areas who had not attended their initial appointment, compared with a reminder letter only (odds ratio 2.12, 95% CI (1.2, 3.8)). However, contacting women proved problematic and there was no additional effect of telephone support or anticipated regret.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a brief telephone support intervention could increase breast cancer screening uptake among lower socio-demographic women in Scotland, via eliciting and addressing barriers to screening attendance. METHODS: In a pilot randomized controlled trial, participants receiving a reminder letter for a missed screening appointment (February-June 2014) were randomized to four arms: No telephone call (control), Simple telephone reminder (TEL), Telephone support (TEL-SUPP), or Telephone support plus anticipated regret (TEL-SUPP-AR). Primary outcomes were making an appointment and attending breast screening. RESULTS: Of 856 women randomized and analysed on intention-to-treat basis, compared with controls, more women in the telephone intervention groups made an appointment (control: 8.8%, TEL: 20.3%, TEL-SUPP: 14.1%; TEL-SUPP-AR: 16.8%, χ(2)(3) = 12.0, p = .007) and attended breast screening (control: 6.9%, TEL: 16.5%, TEL-SUPP: 11.3%; TEL-SUPP-AR: 13.1%, χ(2)(3) = 9.8, p = .020). Of 559 women randomized to the three telephone groups, 404 were successfully contacted and 247 participated in the intervention. Intervention participants (ie. per protocol analysis) were more likely to make (17% versus 10%, χ(2)(1) = 7.0, p = .008) and attend (13% versus 7%, χ(2)(1) = 5.5, p = .019) an appointment than non-participants, but there were no differences in attendance between the three telephone groups. CONCLUSIONS: A simple telephone reminder doubled attendance at breast screening in women from lower socio-demographic areas who had not attended their initial appointment, compared with a reminder letter only (odds ratio 2.12, 95% CI (1.2, 3.8)). However, contacting women proved problematic and there was no additional effect of telephone support or anticipated regret.
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