Erin J Aiello Bowles1, Hongyuan Gao2, Susan Brandzel2, Susan Carol Bradford3, Diana S M Buist2. 1. Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, 1730 Minor Ave, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101, USA. Electronic address: Bowles.e@ghc.org. 2. Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, 1730 Minor Ave, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101, USA. 3. Department of Clinical Improvement and Prevention, Group Health Cooperative, 201 16th Ave E, Seattle, WA 98112, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Test-specific reminder letters can improve cancer screening adherence. Little is known about the effectiveness of a reminder system that targets the whole person by including multiple screening recommendations per letter. METHODS: We compared the effectiveness of a Pap-specific reminder letter sent 27months after a woman's last Pap, to a reminder letter that included up to seven preventive service recommendations sent before a woman's birthday ("birthday letter") on Pap smear adherence from a natural experiment occurring in routine clinical care. Participants included 82,016 women from Washington State who received 72,615 Pap-specific letters between 2003 and 2007 and 100,218 birthday letters between 2009 and 2012. We defined adherence as having a Pap test within a six month window around the Pap test due date. Using logistic regression, we calculated adjusted odds ratios (OR) for adherence with 95% confidence intervals (CI) following the birthday letter with 1-2 recommendations, 3-5 recommendations, and 6-7 recommendations compared to the Pap-specific letter. All analyses were stratified by whether a woman was up-to-date or overdue for screening at the time she received a letter. RESULTS: Adjusted ORs showed reduced adherence following the birthday letter compared with the Pap-specific letter for up-to-date women whether the letter had 1-2 recommendations (OR=0.37, 95%CI=0.36-0.39), 3-5 recommendations (OR=0.44, 95%CI=0.42-0.45), or 6-7 recommendations (OR=0.36, 95%CI=0.32-0.40). We noted no difference in Pap-test adherence between letter types for overdue women. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, for women regularly adherent to screening, an annual birthday letter containing reminders for multiple preventive services was less effective at promoting cervical cancer screening compared with a Pap-specific letter.
OBJECTIVE: Test-specific reminder letters can improve cancer screening adherence. Little is known about the effectiveness of a reminder system that targets the whole person by including multiple screening recommendations per letter. METHODS: We compared the effectiveness of a Pap-specific reminder letter sent 27months after a woman's last Pap, to a reminder letter that included up to seven preventive service recommendations sent before a woman's birthday ("birthday letter") on Pap smear adherence from a natural experiment occurring in routine clinical care. Participants included 82,016 women from Washington State who received 72,615 Pap-specific letters between 2003 and 2007 and 100,218 birthday letters between 2009 and 2012. We defined adherence as having a Pap test within a six month window around the Pap test due date. Using logistic regression, we calculated adjusted odds ratios (OR) for adherence with 95% confidence intervals (CI) following the birthday letter with 1-2 recommendations, 3-5 recommendations, and 6-7 recommendations compared to the Pap-specific letter. All analyses were stratified by whether a woman was up-to-date or overdue for screening at the time she received a letter. RESULTS: Adjusted ORs showed reduced adherence following the birthday letter compared with the Pap-specific letter for up-to-date women whether the letter had 1-2 recommendations (OR=0.37, 95%CI=0.36-0.39), 3-5 recommendations (OR=0.44, 95%CI=0.42-0.45), or 6-7 recommendations (OR=0.36, 95%CI=0.32-0.40). We noted no difference in Pap-test adherence between letter types for overdue women. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, for women regularly adherent to screening, an annual birthday letter containing reminders for multiple preventive services was less effective at promoting cervical cancer screening compared with a Pap-specific letter.
Authors: Mark C Hornbrook; Gene Hart; Jennifer L Ellis; Donald J Bachman; Gary Ansell; Sarah M Greene; Edward H Wagner; Roy Pardee; Mark M Schmidt; Ann Geiger; Amy L Butani; Terry Field; Hassan Fouayzi; Irina Miroshnik; Liyan Liu; Robert Diseker; Karen Wells; Rick Krajenta; Lois Lamerato; Christine Neslund Dudas Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2005
Authors: Farhana Sultana; Robyn Mullins; Michael Murphy; Dallas R English; Julie A Simpson; Kelly T Drennan; Stella Heley; C David Wrede; Julia M L Brotherton; Marion Saville; Dorota M Gertig Journal: Sex Health Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 2.706
Authors: Paula Cronin; Stephen Goodall; Trevor Lockett; Christine M O'Keefe; Richard Norman; Jody Church Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 2.188
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: Susan Brandzel; Eva Chang; Leah Tuzzio; Camille Campbell; Nora Coronado; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Susan Carol Bradford; Diana S M Buist Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2016-11-18
Authors: Hitomi Kariya; Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; John Lin; Hongyuan Gao; Linda K Ko; Rachel L Winer Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Rachel L Winer; Jasmin A Tiro; Diana L Miglioretti; Chris Thayer; Tara Beatty; John Lin; Hongyuan Gao; Kilian Kimbel; Diana S M Buist Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-11-04 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Colin Malone; Diana S M Buist; Jasmin Tiro; William Barlow; Hongyuan Gao; John Lin; Rachel L Winer Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-12-31 Impact factor: 4.018