Promoting mammography use through progressive interventions: is it effective?

Abstract

InrmdwtonAlthough regular This study assessed whether a brief reminder (step 2) was more effective than no reminder and compared the relative impact of three different interventionstelephone counseling, a second reminder letter, and a letter suggesting a preventive office visit-in motivating still nonadherent women to get mammograms (step 3). Methods ProceduresFor the step 2 and step 3 intervention evaluations, two mutually exclusive samples were used. So that both interventions could be completed within the same time period, thereby minimizing effects of secular events, women for the step 3 evaluation were selected first because of step 3's longer follow-up period (185 daysvs 95 for step 2).Step were eligible for evaluation; of these, 21%could not be contacted during the allotted time interval, 19% had already had their mammograms, and 1% refused.Step 3 evaluation. An annual packet (step 1) was mailed to 2123 women who constituted the initial sample and a step 2 reminder was sent to women without a mammogram report. Ninety days after the packet mailing, we attempted to survey 1265 women without a mammogram report to verify their mammography status. Of these, 25% could not be contacted during the 1-week eligibility evaluation window, 25% had already had mammograms, and 2% refused. Thus, 598 eligible women were randomized to one of three interventions: (1)

Sexual Orientation and Intentions to Obtain Breast Cancer Screening

“…First, changing beliefs about breast cancer risk and the disadvantages to obtaining screening might be accomplished via several methods tested in population-based samples, such as barrier-specific counseling. 32 This type of counseling can be performed in person or over the telephone, individually or in groups, or even at the community level. 28,33 Research must be done to test these interventions in lesbian/bisexual women, but counseling models are available for changing ideas about the disadvantages of breast cancer screening to increase screening rates.…”

What is the Most Effective Strategy for Improving the Cancer Screening Rate in Japan?

“…Some studies have previously evaluated the effectiveness of various strategies (Hisamichi et al, 1991;Watanabe, 2003;Shimada et al, 2010a;Shimada et al, 2010b;Matsuda et al, 2011;Takaku, 2011;Kuroki, 2012;Yoshida et al, 2012), but it was difficult to compare the effectiveness of these strategies, as each study focused on the effectiveness of an individual strategy using different subjects and methodologies. As the most effective strategy in improving cancer screening rates differs depending on the country and region (McAvoy and Raza, 1991;King et al, 1994;Saywell et al, 1999;Champion et al, 2003;Saywell et al, 2003;Saywell et al, 2004;Blumenthal at al., 2010;Lee et al, 2012;Frie et al, 2013), it remains unclear which strategy would be the most effective in Japan. Therefore, a study comparing the effectiveness of different strategies used to improve cancer screening rates in Japan is warranted and poised to be very useful for decision makers.…”

The effect of telephone versus print tailoring for mammography adherence

“…Results of several studies suggest that tailoring interventions to both HBM constructs and stage of mammography adoption (based on TTM) enhances intervention effectiveness leading to increased mammography use [14,17,[23][24][25][26]. Further, there is some evidence that combining tailored telephone and print interventions are more effective than print along.…”