Literature DB >> 9154360

Recruiting women for breast screening. Family Physician Model strategy.

R G McAuley1, C Rand, M Levine.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether family physicians would participate in the Family Physician Model (FPM) recruitment strategy for mammography screening, whether participating physicians differed from non-participating physicians, and whether the strategy would recruit 70% of eligible women in the participating practices.
DESIGN: Family physicians were invited to participate in the project. Staff from the Ontario Breast Screening Program-Hamilton Centre (OBSP-H) identified eligible women, prepared personalized letters recommending screening, and monitored compliance. Participating and non-participating physicians were asked to complete a questionnaire.
SETTING: Family practices in Dundas, Ancaster, and Hamilton, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 50 years and older who met eligibility criteria for screening. Family physicians in Dundas, Ancaster, and Hamilton. INTERVENTION: Family physicians were approached by the Health Promotion Officer at the OBSP-H about participating in the FPM. Eligible women in their practices were sent letters recommending breast screening. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of family physicians agreeing to participate in the FPM, characteristics of participating and non-participating physicians, and percentage of eligible women who scheduled mammograms.
RESULTS: Of the 114 family physicians approached, 76 (67%) agreed to participate. Significantly more participating than non-participating physicians were in group practice and had certification in family medicine. In response to the letters, 54% of eligible women obtained mammograms. Because 12% of women were ineligible since they had been referred for screening within the previous 12 months, 66% of women in the participating practices actually obtained mammograms over the 2-year period-almost the target 70%.
CONCLUSION: The FPM is a successful recruitment strategy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9154360      PMCID: PMC2255545     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Fam Physician        ISSN: 0008-350X            Impact factor:   3.275


  11 in total

1.  Self-reported barriers to mammography: implications for physicians.

Authors:  P M Lantz; P L Remington; M Soref
Journal:  Wis Med J       Date:  1990-10

2.  Encouraging attendance at a screening mammography programme: determinants of response to different recruitment strategies.

Authors:  P E Schofield; J Cockburn; D J Hill; D Reading
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 2.136

3.  Evaluating women's attitudes and perceptions in developing mammography promotion messages.

Authors:  C Schechter; C F Vanchieri; C Crofton
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1990 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.792

4.  Mammography screening by family physicians.

Authors:  R G McAuley; S Lusk
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1989-10-15       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 5.  Mammography: reviewing the evidence. Epidemiology aspect.

Authors:  A B Miller
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 3.275

6.  Breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  C J Baines
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 3.275

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.  Screening and self examination for breast cancer.

Authors:  J Austoker
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-07-16

9.  Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  S W Fletcher; W Black; R Harris; B K Rimer; S Shapiro
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1993-10-20       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Effects of age, education, and physician advice on utilization of screening mammography.

Authors:  P P Coll; P J O'Connor; B F Crabtree; R W Besdine
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1989-10       Impact factor: 5.562

View more
  2 in total

1.  A randomized trial of mail vs. telephone invitation to a community-based cardiovascular health awareness program for older family practice patients [ISRCTN61739603].

Authors:  Tina Karwalajtys; Janusz Kaczorowski; Larry W Chambers; Cheryl Levitt; Lisa Dolovich; Bea McDonough; Christopher Patterson; James E Williams
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2005-08-19       Impact factor: 2.497

2.  Randomized controlled trial comparing telephone and mail follow-up for recruitment of participants into a clinical trial of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Arthur D Wong; John Kirby; Gordon H Guyatt; Paul Moayyedi; Parag Vora; John J You
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2013-02-11       Impact factor: 2.279

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.