Literature DB >> 8279610

Physicians' recommendations for mammography: do tailored messages make a difference?

C S Skinner1, V J Strecher, H Hospers.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Message tailoring, based on individual needs and circumstances, is commonly used to enhance face-to-face patient counseling. Only recently has individual tailoring become feasible for printed messages. This study sought to determine whether printed tailored recommendations addressing women's specific screening and risk status and perceptions about breast cancer and mammography are more effective than standardized printed recommendations.
METHODS: Computer-assisted telephone interviews were conducted with 435 women, aged 40 to 65 years, who had visited family practice groups within the previous 2 years. Subjects were randomly allocated to receive individually tailored or standardized mammography recommendation letters mailed from physicians to patients' homes. Follow-up interviews were conducted 8 months later.
RESULTS: Tailored letter recipients were more likely to remember and to have read more of their letters than standardized version recipients. After controlling for baseline status, tailored letter receipt was associated with more favorable follow-up mammography status for women with incomes below $26,000 and for Black women.
CONCLUSIONS: Tailored messages are a more effective medium for physicians' mammography recommendations; tailoring may be especially important for women of low socioeconomic status.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8279610      PMCID: PMC1614921          DOI: 10.2105/ajph.84.1.43

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Public Health        ISSN: 0090-0036            Impact factor:   9.308


  28 in total

1.  Explaining attendance at a breast-screening clinic.

Authors:  M W Calnan; S Moss; J Chamberlain
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  1985-03

2.  A case-control study of the efficacy of a non-randomized breast cancer screening program in Florence (Italy).

Authors:  D Palli; M R Del Turco; E Buiatti; S Carli; S Ciatto; L Toscani; G Maltoni
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1986-10-15       Impact factor: 7.396

3.  Reduction of breast cancer mortality through mass screening with modern mammography. First results of the Nijmegen project, 1975-1981.

Authors:  A L Verbeek; J H Hendriks; R Holland; M Mravunac; F Sturmans; N E Day
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1984-06-02       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Evaluation of screening for breast cancer in a non-randomised study (the DOM project) by means of a case-control study.

Authors:  H J Collette; N E Day; J J Rombach; F de Waard
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1984-06-02       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  A decisional balance measure and the stages of change model for weight loss.

Authors:  D O'Connell; W F Velicer
Journal:  Int J Addict       Date:  1988-07

6.  Survival experience in the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project.

Authors:  H Seidman; S K Gelb; E Silverberg; N LaVerda; J A Lubera
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  1987 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 508.702

7.  Factors influencing women's decision to undergo mammography.

Authors:  J Kruse; D M Phillips
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1987-11       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.

Authors:  L Tabár; C J Fagerberg; A Gad; L Baldetorp; L H Holmberg; O Gröntoft; U Ljungquist; B Lundström; J C Månson; G Eklund
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  What is the optimum interval between mammographic screening examinations? An analysis based on the latest results of the Swedish two-county breast cancer screening trial.

Authors:  L Tabár; G Faberberg; N E Day; L Holmberg
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1987-05       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  The predictive value of positive test results in screening for breast cancer by mammography in the Nijmegen programme.

Authors:  P H Peeters; A L Verbeek; J H Hendriks; R Holland; M Mravunac
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1987-11       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  93 in total

1.  Outcomes of the Learn, Share & Live breast cancer education program for older urban women.

Authors:  C S Skinner; C L Arfken; B Waterman
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 2.  Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review.

Authors:  Adrian Edwards; Silvana Unigwe; Glyn Elwyn; Kerenza Hood
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-27

3.  Delivering equitable care: comparing preventive services in Manitoba.

Authors:  Sumit Gupta; Leslie L Roos; Randy Walld; Dawn Traverse; Matthew Dahl
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Effectiveness of a worksite intervention to reduce an occupational exposure: the Minnesota wood dust study.

Authors:  DeAnn Lazovich; David L Parker; Lisa M Brosseau; F Thomas Milton; Siobhan K Dugan; Wei Pan; Lynette Hock
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Effectiveness of individually tailored calendars in promoting childhood immunization in urban public health centers.

Authors:  Matthew W Kreuter; Charlene A Caburnay; John J Chen; Maureen J Donlin
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Sociocultural correlates of breast cancer knowledge and screening in urban African American women.

Authors:  Susan N Lukwago; Matthew W Kreuter; Cheryl L Holt; Karen Steger-May; Dawn C Bucholtz; Celette Sugg Skinner
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 7.  Disparities in screening mammography. Current status, interventions and implications.

Authors:  Monica E Peek; Jini H Han
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 8.  Customization of medical report data.

Authors:  Bruce I Reiner
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  Patient education strategies in dermatology: part 2: methods.

Authors:  Matthew J Zirwas; Jessica L Holder
Journal:  J Clin Aesthet Dermatol       Date:  2009-12

Review 10.  Risk assessment models to estimate cancer probabilities.

Authors:  Constance M Johnson; Derek Smolenski
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 5.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.