A randomised controlled trial of strategies to prompt attendance for a Pap smear. The safety net: a cost-effective approach to improving breast and cervical cancer screening. Cost-effectiveness comparison of five interventions to increase mammography screening. Promoting participation in a population screening program for breast and cervical cancer: a randomized trial of different invitation strategies. Cancer screening intervention among black women in inner-city Atlanta--design of a study. Breast and cervical cancer screening in a low-income managed care sample: the efficacy of physician letters and phone calls. A large population-based randomized controlled trial to increase attendance at screening for cervical cancer. Using an office system intervention to increase breast cancer screening. Message framing and mammography screening: a theory-driven intervention. Promoting cancer screening. A randomized, controlled trial of three interventions. A randomized trial to improve early detection and prevention practices among siblings of melanoma patients. Effect of a cancer screening intervention conducted by lay health workers among inner-city women. Outcome of screening by clinical examination of the breast in a trial in the Philippines.
To assess the comparative efficacy, by randomised controlled trial, of three interventions designed to encourage "at risk" women to have a Pap smear: an educational pamphlet; letters inviting attendance at a women's health clinic; and letters from physicians.
                Subjects at risk for cervical cancer who had not been adequately screened were identified by a random community survey and randomly allocated to one of the intervention groups or a control group. Six months after intervention implementation, a follow up survey assessed subsequent screening attendance. Self report was validated by comparison with a national screening data base.
                A significantly greater proportion of women (36.9%) within the group receiving a physician letter reported screening at follow up than in any other group (P = 0.012). The variables most strongly predicting screening attendance were: age, perceived frequency of screening required, use of oral contraceptives, and allocation to receive the physician letter intervention.
                The relative efficacy of the GP letter in prompting screening attendance shows that this strategy is worthy of further investigation. There remains a need to examine the barriers to screening for older women, and to develop tailored strategies for this population. The purposes of the study were (1). to assess the cost-effectiveness of three interventions to deliver breast and cervical cancer screening to women unscreened for >or=3 years and (2). to determine the relation of an invasive cervical cancer diagnosis to the interval since the last true screening test.
                In a randomized trial, women were randomly assigned to (1). usual care, (2). letter plus follow-up letter, (3). letter plus follow-up phone call, (4). phone call plus follow-up phone call. Screening within 12 weeks was the outcome. A 5-year retrospective review of cervical cancer cases and screening histories was done.
                The 8% of women not screened for >or=5 years had 62% of the invasive cervical cancer cases. Mammography outreach led to screening in 10%, 24%, 51%, and 50% of controls, letter/letter, letter/phone, and phone/phone interventions groups, respectively. Cervical cancer screening outreach led to screening in 17%, 22%, 54%, and 50% of the respective groups. Letter reminders alone produced fewer tests at substantially higher costs than did personalized telephone notification.
                For cervical cancer, only 1 person in 12 was not screened in the preceding 5 years, but these accounted for nearly two thirds of invasive cancers. Aggressive outreach to the rarely screened is an important part of screening programs. Letter reminder, followed by a telephone appointment call, was the most cost-effective approach to screening rarely screened women. Lack of accurate information on prior hysterectomy adds substantial unnecessary costs to a screening reminder program. Mammography is the primary method used for breast cancer screening. However, compliance with recommended screening practices is still below acceptable levels. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of five combinations of physician recommendation and telephone or in-person individualized counseling strategies for increasing compliance with mammography.
                There were 808 participants who were randomly assigned to one of six groups. A logistic regression model with compliance as the dependent variable and group as the independent variable was used to test for significant differences and a ratio of cost to improvement in mammogram compliance evaluated the cost-effectiveness.
                Three of the interventions (in-person, telephone plus letter, and in-person plus letter) had significantly better compliance rates compared with the control, physician letter, or telephone alone. However, when considering costs, only one emerged as the superior strategy. The cost-effectiveness ratios for the five interventions show that telephone-plus-letter is the most cost-effective strategy, achieving a 35.6% mammography compliance at a marginal cost of $0.78 per 1% increase in women screened.
                A tailored phone prompt and physician reminder is an effective and economical intervention to increase mammography. Future research should confirm this finding and address its applicability to practice.
                Copyright 1999 American Health Foundation and Academic Press. Attendance level has been identified as a major determinant of cost-effectiveness of organized screening programs. We tested the effectiveness of 4 different invitation systems in the context of an organized population screening program for cervical and breast cancer.
                Women eligible for invitation--8385 for cervical and 8069 for breast cancer screening--listed in the rosters of 43 and 105 general practitioners (GP), respectively, who had accepted to collaborate in the program, were randomized to 4 invitation groups: Group A--letter signed by the GP, with a prefixed appointment; Group B--open-ended invitation, signed by the GP, prompting women to contact the screening center to arrange an appointment; Group C--letter (same as for group A), signed by the program coordinator, with a prefixed appointment; Group D--extended letter (highlighting the benefits of early cancer detection) signed by the GP, with a prefixed appointment. Assignment to the interventions was based on a randomized block design (block=GP).
                Assuming Group A as the reference, the overall compliance with cervical cancer screening was reduced by 39% in Group B (RR=0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.68) and by 14% in Group C (RR=0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93); no difference was observed for Group D (RR=1.03; 95% CI, 0.95-1.1). The response pattern was similar for breast screening (Group B: RR=0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.76; Group C: RR=0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94; Group D: RR=1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.08).
                Personal invitation letters signed by the woman's GP, with preallocated appointments, induce a significant increase in compliance with screening. Efficiency can be ensured through the adoption of overbooking, provided that attendance levels are regularly monitored. This experimental study attempts to determine if an in-home educational intervention conducted by lay health workers (LHWs) can increase adherence among low-income, inner-city black women to schedules for screening for breast cancer and cervical cancer, as well as increase the women's knowledge and change their attitudes regarding these cancers. This paper is a description of the purposes, hypotheses, design, subject recruitment, intervention, and evaluation of the study conducted by Morehouse School of Medicine. Subjects were recruited from a variety of sources, including patients seen in a community health center, women referred by the National Black Women's Health Project (NBWHP), residents of public and senior citizen housing projects, and persons identified in various community settings. Fewer than half of those asked to participate agreed to do so. The 321 women who were recruited were demographically diverse. Overall, about half of these volunteer subjects self-reported at least one Papanicolaou (Pap) smear and one breast examination within a year before enrollment in the study. There was little variation by source of recruitment in compliance with screening recommendations, except that referrals from NBWHP were more likely (P less than 0.01) to have had a Pap test and breast self-examination, while residents of public housing projects were somewhat less likely to have done so. About 35 percent of participants ages 35 and older had a mammogram within an appropriate interval. Participants were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. Women in the intervention group were visited in their homes by LHWs on three occasions; the LHWs provided education on cancer and reproductive health. The groups were comparable in their baseline sociodemographic status and previous screening history. A randomized trial was conducted to evaluate the combined impact of a physician reminder letter and a telephone contact on the use of Pap tests and mammograms in a low-income managed care program. Women 40 to 79 years of age who were past due for cancer screening were randomly assigned to an intervention or control group. Medical claims were reviewed after 6 months to determine intervention effectiveness. The odds of receiving all needed cancer screening tests during follow-up were four times higher in the intervention group. Women who reported having to take time off from work to see a doctor had lower odds of getting screened. Although cervical cancer is one of the potentially most preventable malignancies, it is still fairly common. In settings with established screening programs, increased compliance is important for future reduction in cervical cancer incidence, but it is presently unclear how this can be effectively achieved.
                We conducted a randomized controlled trial including all 12,240 women invited to organized screening in Sweden. To increase compliance, three successive interventions were tested: (a) modified invitation versus the standard invitation letter, (b) reminder letter to nonattenders after the first intervention versus no reminder letter, and (c) phone reminder to nonattenders after the reminder letter versus no phone reminder. We analyzed the proportion of women attending screening after each intervention and the cumulative proportion after the interventions as well as the cumulative proportions of cytologic abnormalities.
                The modified invitation did not increase attendance compared with the standard invitation letter [difference 1.3% 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.3 to 2.9]. In contrast, a reminder letter increased the proportion of women attending with 9.2% (95% CI 7.9-10.5) compared with women who did not receive a reminder letter, and a phone reminder increased the proportion of women attending with 31.4% (95% CI 26.9-35.9). Combinations of modified invitation, written reminder, and phone reminder almost doubled attendance within 12 months, and the number of detected cytologic abnormalities was more than tripled.
                Simple reminders by mail and phone can drastically increase women's participation in Papanicolaou smear screening and increase the number of detected precursor lesions and thereby save lives. To evaluate an innovative approach to continuing medical education, an outreach intervention designed to improve performance rates of breast cancer screening through implementation of office systems in community primary care practices.
                Randomized, controlled trial with primary care practices assigned to either the intervention group or control group, with the practice as the unit of analysis.
                Twenty mostly rural counties in North Carolina.
                Physicians and staff of 62 randomly selected family medicine and general internal medicine practices, primarily fee-for-service, half group practices and half solo practitioners.
                Physician investigators and facilitators met with practice physicians and staff over a period of 12 to 18 months to provide feedback on breast cancer screening performance, and to assist these primary care practices in developing office systems tailored to increase breast cancer screening.
                Physician questionnaires were obtained at baseline and follow-up to assess the presence of five indicators of an office system. Three of the five indicators of office systems increased significantly more in intervention practices than in control practices, but the mean number of indicators in intervention practices at followup was only 2.8 out of 5. Cross-sectional reviews of randomly chosen medical records of eligible women patients aged 50 years and over were done at baseline (n = 2,887) and follow-up (n = 2,874) to determine whether clinical breast examinations and mammography, were performed. Results for mammography were recorded in two ways, mention of the test in the visit note and actual report of the test in the medical record. These reviews showed an increase from 39% to 51% in mention of mammography in intervention practices, compared with an increase from 41% to 44% in control practices (p = .01). There was no significant difference, however, between the two groups in change in mammograms reported (intervention group increased from 28% to 32.7%; control group increased from 30.6% to 34.0%, p = .56). There was a nonsignificant trend (p = .06) toward a greater increase in performance of clinical breast examination in intervention versus control practices.
                A moderately intensive outreach intervention to increase rates of breast cancer screening through the development of office systems was modestly successful in increasing indicators of office systems and in documenting mention of mammography, but had little impact on actual performance of breast cancer screening. At follow-up, few practices had a complete office system for breast cancer screening. Outreach approaches to assist primary care practices implement office systems are promising but need further development. Although the rising incidence of breast cancer has prompted a surge of intervention strategies aimed at increasing women's use of mammography screening, the majority of patient-directed interventions have not been driven by relevant theoretical work on persuasive health communication. The authors evaluated an intervention derived from prospect theory that was designed to increase women's adherence to recommendations for annual mammography screening. They sent 1 of 3 reminder letters (positive frame, negative frame, or standard hospital prompt) to 929 randomly selected women who were due for mammography screening and had been identified as having either a positive or negative family history of breast cancer. The primary hypothesis that women with a positive history would be more responsive to negatively framed messages, whereas women with a negative history would be more responsive to positively framed letters, was not confirmed. The lack of support for predictions derived from prospect theory raises important questions about the generalizability of laboratory research to natural settings. To determine effective methods of promoting routine cancer screening, we randomly assigned 62 internal medicine residents to receive cancer screening reminders (computer-generated lists of overdue tests at patients' visits), audit with feedback (monthly seminars about screening, with feedback about their performance rates), or no intervention (controls). Half of the residents in each group also were randomized to receive patient education (patients received literature and notices of overdue tests). We reviewed a sample of each physician's medical records to assess performance of seven tests during 9-month periods before and after initiating the interventions. Cancer screening reminders increased performance of six of seven tests; audit with feedback, four of seven tests; and patient education, one of two targeted breast cancer screening tests. The results indicate that the cancer screening reminders strategy was the most effective in promoting the performance of routine cancer screening tests. Identifying high-risk individuals for melanoma education and risk reduction may be a viable strategy to curb the incidence of melanoma, which has risen precipitously in the past 50 years. The first-degree relatives of melanoma patients represent a risk group who may experience a 'teachable moment' for enhanced education and risk reduction.
                We report a randomized trial testing an intervention that provided personalized telephone counseling and individually tailored materials to siblings of recently-diagnosed melanoma patients. The purpose of this study was to test whether an intervention could lead to improvements in siblings' skin cancer risk reduction practices. Intervention condition participants received the following: (1) an initial motivational and goal-setting telephone intervention session delivered by the health educator; (2) three sets of computer-generated materials specifically tailored to individual responses from the baseline survey; (3) three telephone counseling sessions with the health educator, timed to follow receipt of the mailed materials; and (4) linkages to free screening programs. Families in the usual care arm received the suggestion from the physician that patients diagnosed with melanoma notify the family members about their diagnosis and encourage the family members to be screened.
                494 siblings were recruited to the study and 403 siblings remained in the study through at least 6 months. At 12 months, intervention siblings were more likely to examine all moles, including those on the back (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.06-2.91). Compared with baseline, the number of participants in both groups that had received a skin cancer examination more than doubled, with no differences between groups. At 12 months, two-thirds of siblings in both groups reported routine use of sunscreen, but there were no differences in change over baseline between the two groups.
                This study is the one of the first, to our knowledge, to address skin cancer risk-reduction strategies in a sample of individuals who have a recent family diagnosis of melanoma. Diagnosis of melanoma in a family member provides an important opportunity to intervene with others in that family. The components of the intervention may provide a useful foundation for future efforts to target the more than half million siblings at risk for melanoma, a lethal but preventable disease. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine if an in-home educational intervention conducted by lay health workers (LHWs) could increase adherence among low-income, inner-city, African-American women to breast and cervical cancer screening schedules.
                We recruited 321 African-American women from diverse inner-city sources. After baseline interviews, they were randomly assigned to either the intervention (n = 163) or the control (n = 158) group. Those in the intervention group were visited in their homes up to three times by LHWs who provided a culturally sensitive educational program that emphasized the need for screening.
                Ninety-three (93) women in the intervention group and 102 in the control group completed the postintervention interview. For Pap smears, the increase in screening was similar in both groups. For clinical breast exams (CBEs), however, there was a modest increase in the intervention group. The improvement was greatest for mammography, for which there was a 10% to 12% increase. Among women who were not on recommended schedules at baseline, the improvement was substantial and greater in the intervention group.
                LHWs' intervention appeared to improve the rate at which inner-city women obtained CBEs and mammograms, but had no effect on Pap smears. A high attrition rate weakened our ability to make conclusive statements about the exact impact of the intervention. The value of screening by Clinical Examination of the Breast (CBE) as a means of reducing mortality from breast cancer (BC) is not established. The issue is relevant, as CBE may be a suitable option for countries in economic transition, where incidence rates are on the increase but limited resources do not permit screening by mammography. Our aims were to assess whether mass screening by CBE carried out by trained para-medical personnel is feasible in an urban population of a low-income country, and its efficacy in reducing BC mortality. Our study was designed as a randomised controlled trial of the effect on BC mortality of 5 annual CBE carried out by trained nurses. The target population was women aged 35-64 years, resident in 12 municipalities of the National Capital Region of Manila, Philippines. The units of randomization were the 202 health centres (HC) within the selected municipalities. During 1995 nurses and midwives were recruited and trained in performing CBE. The first round of screening took place in 1996-1997. The intervention however showed a refractory attitude of the population with respect to clinical follow-up and was discontinued after the completion of the first screening round. Cases of breast cancer occurring in the study population during 1996-1999 were identified by the 2 local population-based registries. In the single screening round 151,168 women were interviewed and offered CBE, 92% accepted (138,392), 3,479 were detected positive for a lump and referred for diagnosis. Of these only 1220 women (35%) completed diagnostic follow-up, whereas 42.4% actively refused further investigation even with home visits, and 22.5% were not traced. Of 53 cases that occurred among screen-positive women in the 2 years after CBE only 34 were diagnosed through the intervention. Eighty cases occurred among screen-negative women. The test sensitivity for CBE repeated annually was 53.2%. The actual sensitivity of the programme was 25.6% and positive predictive value 1%. Screen-detected cases were non-significantly less advanced than the others. Previous studies have shown that most breast cancer cases in the Philippines present at advanced stages and have an unfavourable outcome. Although CBE undertaken by health workers seems to offer a cost-effective approach to reducing mortality, the sensitivity of the screening programme in the real context was low. Moreover, in this relatively well-educated population, cultural and logistic barriers to seeking diagnosis and treatment persist and need to be addressed before any screening programme is introduced.
                Copyright 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Most active recruitment strategies for breast cancer screening programs examined in this review were more effective than no intervention. Combinations of effective interventions can have an important effect. Some costly strategies, as a home visit and a letter of invitation to multiple screening examinations plus educational material, were not effective. Further reviews comparing the effective interventions and studies that include cost-effectiveness, women's satisfaction and equity issues are needed.