Examining connections between screening for breast, cervical and prostate cancer and colorectal cancer screening

Wirth, Michael D.; Brandt, Heather M.; Dolinger, Heather; Hardin, James W.; Sharpe, Patricia A.; Eberth, Jan M.

doi:10.2217/crc.14.18

Cited by 19 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although not entirely surprising given this variation in programmespecific participation, it is nevertheless disconcerting that only about one in three women were up-to-date with all their recommended cancer screens, and one in ten remained completely unscreened in the last round. While we observed the same patterns as elsewhere, in that participants in one programme were also substantially more likely to participate in another screening programme, 20,21,23,24,26 only half of women who participated at least once did in fact participate in all other recommended screening. Taken together, this means that the targeted population is less well protected from all three cancers simultaneously than the participation rates from the individual screening programmes could suggest, although nine out of ten are protected against dying Adjusted for all other practice characteristics in the table.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Multiple studies showing that the likelihood of participation in a given screening programme increases with participation in a different programme could be considered to support this hypothesis. [20][21][22][23][24][25][26] In the case of English women in their 60s, where the lowest participation is observed for bowel screening (57%), 27 this would mean that close to half of all women should be simultaneously protected from an early death from all three cancers. This, however, has not been tested previously, and doing so is the aim of our study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Concurrent participation in screening for cervical, breast, and bowel cancer in England

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To determine how many women participate in all three recommended cancer screening programmes (breast, cervical, and bowel). During their early 60s, English women receive an invitation from all the three programmes. Methods For 3060 women aged 60–65 included in an England-wide breast screening case–control study, we investigated the number of screening programmes they participated in during the last invitation round. Additionally, using the Fingertips database curated by Public Health England, we explored area-level correlations between participation in the three cancer screening programmes and various population characteristics for all 7014 English general practices with complete data. Results Of the 3060 women, 1086 (35%) participated in all three programmes, 1142 (37%) in two, 526 (17%) in one, and 306 (10%) in none. Participation in all three did not appear to be a random event ( p < 0.001). General practices from areas with less deprivation, with more patients who are carers or have chronic illnesses themselves, and with more patients satisfied with the provided service were significantly more likely to attain high coverage rates in all programmes. Conclusions Only a minority of English women is concurrently protected through all recommended cancer screening programmes. Future studies should consider why most women participate in some but not all recommended screening.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concurrent participation in screening for cervical, breast, and bowel cancer in England

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We expected screening mammography adherence to be related to a woman’s up-to-date status 23,24 and age; 21 therefore, all analyses were stratified by adherence with last mammography recommendation and age (40–49, 50–69 and 70–74 years). Up-to-date letters (N=143,564) were sent to women who had a screening mammogram in the previous 12–24 months.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast cancer screening outreach effectiveness: Mammogram-specific reminders vs. comprehensive preventive services birthday letters

Buist

Gao

Anderson

et al. 2017

Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared the effectiveness of two outreach strategies on timely mammography adherence: a mammogram-specific reminder letter (sent just before a woman was due) to a birthday letter (addresses multiple preventive services and not timed around due dates). We evaluated screening mammography adherence following 79,848 mammogram-specific and 151,626 birthday letters mailed between 2002–2012 to women aged 40–74 years enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Washington. Screening mammogram adherence was specifically tied to due-date and was evaluated separately by age group and up-to-date or overdue status at the time of mailing. We used generalized estimating equations to account for correlation between repeated observations, to model the odds of screening mammography adherence by letter type. Among women up-to-date, adherence following birthday letters was 22–76% lower compared to the mammogram-specific reminders, with the greatest decreases in adherence in women aged 70–74. Birthday letters were more effective at activating screening uptake among some subgroups of overdue women aged 50–69 and most overdue women aged 70–74, but universally low adherence rates were observed in overdue women. Increasing number of recommended services for women aged 50–74 who were up-to-date resulted in 12–17% lower mammography adherence, but had no effect in women aged 40–49 or in overdue women. Birthday letters are less effective than mammogram-specific reminder letters at prompting women to undergo timely breast cancer screening, particularly among women up-to-date with screening. Birthday letters may be effective at increasing overall preventive care; however, supplemental outreach may be needed around the due date to increase timely preventive services receipt.

show abstract

“…(17, 18) Therefore, we determined whether each woman was up-to-date or overdue for screening at the time each letter was sent using HEDIS definitions, accounting for changes in the definitions each year. (19) HEDIS is a tool used by U.S. health plans to measure performance on various aspects of healthcare and service.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative effectiveness of two outreach strategies for cervical cancer screening

Bowles

Gao

Brandzel

et al. 2016

Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. We compared the effectiveness of a Pap-specific reminder letter sent 27 months 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 2003–2007 and 100,218 birthday letters between 2009–2012. 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. 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. 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.

show abstract

Examining connections between screening for breast, cervical and prostate cancer and colorectal cancer screening

Cited by 19 publications

References 54 publications

Concurrent participation in screening for cervical, breast, and bowel cancer in England

Concurrent participation in screening for cervical, breast, and bowel cancer in England

Breast cancer screening outreach effectiveness: Mammogram-specific reminders vs. comprehensive preventive services birthday letters

Comparative effectiveness of two outreach strategies for cervical cancer screening

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About