OBJECTIVES: Firstly, to determine if attendance for second round mammography screening in those sent a tailored letter (that is, making reference to their screening history) is increased compared with those sent a standard letter; secondly, to investigate the acceptability of tailored letters. SETTING:North West Glasgow Breast Screening Centre. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial. RESULTS:Overall attendance was unrelated to whether the women were sent a tailored or standard letter; 60% of those sent the standard letter attended (922/1531) compared with 62% of those sent the tailored letter (956/1552) (chi 2 = 0.61, P = 0.4) (difference 2%; 95% confidence interval -2% to 5%). There were no significant differences in percentage attendance within each of the study subgroups: women who attended previously and received an all clear result, women who attended previously and received a false positive result, women who were invited previously and failed to attend, and women who were previously too young to be invited for screening. However, there was a statistically significant difference in percentage attendance between these four groups, independent of letter type (chi 2 = 510, P < 0.00001). Although women found the letters acceptable and understandable, they did not seem to pay close attention to the content. CONCLUSIONS: Tailoring invitation letters does not have a significant effect on uptake rates for breast screening and does not justify the additional workload required.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Firstly, to determine if attendance for second round mammography screening in those sent a tailored letter (that is, making reference to their screening history) is increased compared with those sent a standard letter; secondly, to investigate the acceptability of tailored letters. SETTING: North West Glasgow Breast Screening Centre. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial. RESULTS: Overall attendance was unrelated to whether the women were sent a tailored or standard letter; 60% of those sent the standard letter attended (922/1531) compared with 62% of those sent the tailored letter (956/1552) (chi 2 = 0.61, P = 0.4) (difference 2%; 95% confidence interval -2% to 5%). There were no significant differences in percentage attendance within each of the study subgroups: women who attended previously and received an all clear result, women who attended previously and received a false positive result, women who were invited previously and failed to attend, and women who were previously too young to be invited for screening. However, there was a statistically significant difference in percentage attendance between these four groups, independent of letter type (chi 2 = 510, P < 0.00001). Although women found the letters acceptable and understandable, they did not seem to pay close attention to the content. CONCLUSIONS: Tailoring invitation letters does not have a significant effect on uptake rates for breast screening and does not justify the additional workload required.
Authors: Rebecca Mottram; Wendy Lynn Knerr; Daniel Gallacher; Hannah Fraser; Lena Al-Khudairy; Abimbola Ayorinde; Sian Williamson; Chidozie Nduka; Olalekan A Uthman; Samantha Johnson; Alexander Tsertsvadze; Christopher Stinton; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Aileen Clarke Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 2.692