Comparison of tailored interventions to increase mammography screening in nonadherent older women

BACKGROUND: Recent increases in mammography use have led to a decrease in mortality from breast cancer. METHODS: Building on the Health Belief Model, the Transtheoretical Model, and past effectiveness of tailored interventions, we conducted a prospective randomized trial (n = 773) to test the efficacy on mammography adherence of tailored interventions delivered by five different methods, i.e., telephone counseling, in-person counseling, physician letter, and combinations of telephone with letter and in-person with letter. RESULTS: All five interventions increased mammography adherence significantly relative to usual care (odds ratios, 1.93 to 3.55) at 6 months post intervention. The combination of in-person with physician letter was significantly more effective than telephone alone or letter alone. Women thinking about getting a mammogram at baseline were more likely to be adherent by 6 months; even those in usual care achieved 48% adherence compared with 50-70% in the intervention groups. In contrast, women not thinking about getting a mammogram needed the interventions to increase their adherence from 13% to over 30%. CONCLUSIONS: All five interventions were effective at increasing mammography adherence. Women not thinking about getting a mammogram were most likely to benefit from these tailored interventions while other women might need less intensive interventions.     

Recruitment to mammography screening: a randomised trial and meta-analysis of invitation letters and telephone calls

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of three recruitment strategies to encourage women to attend for an initial mammography screen, and to compare results with similar service studies. Interventions were: (1) an invitation letter; (2) two invitation letters; and (3) an invitation letter plus a follow-up telephone call. METHODS: All women aged 50-54 years in two BreastScreen New South Wales (BSNSW) Screening and Assessment Service catchment areas (n=3,144) were recruited from the Australian Electoral Roll and randomised to the four groups. Response rates for each intervention were compared relative to standard practice (one invitation letter) at 12-weeks follow-up. Marginal cost-effectiveness for each condition was calculated. Other similar randomised trials were also meta-analysed. RESULTS: The screening rate for two letters was 8.5% (OR=1.61, 95% CI 1.08-2.40) and 7.8% (OR=1.46, 95% CI 0.97-2.18) for one letter plus a telephone call, compared with 5.5% for standard practice (one letter) (OR=1.00). The response rate in the one letter plus a phone call group was 13.3% (OR=2.65, 95% CI 1.76-4.00) for women where a phone number was located. CONCLUSION: Initial screening rates after a 12-week follow-up were significantly higher in the women receiving a second invitation letter, compared with standard practice (one letter). Marginal cost-effectiveness favoured the two-letter approach. IMPLICATIONS: A follow-up invitation letter is more cost-effective than one invitation letter plus a follow-up telephone call in the BSNSW program. However, an invitation letter plus follow-up phone call is more cost-effective in recruiting women to BSNSW only if a phone number is located.     

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Interventions to Enhance Mammography Compliance Using Computer Modeling (CAN*TROL)

OBJECTIVE: Tailored telephone counseling and physician-based and clinic-based interventions have been shown to be cost-effective in enhancing utilization of mammography among nonadherent women. The objective of this study was to evaluate the costs and benefits of a broad implementation of these interventions from a health payer perspective. METHODS: CAN*TROL computer modeling was employed in the cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions in a 2000 Texas female population. The estimated effects of the various interventions and their related costs derived from the literature were applied to a hypothetical scenario of a broad implementation of these interventions. RESULTS: Seven studies were identified from the literature, six of them employed tailored telephone counseling (TC), whereas two used comprehensive physician-based (PB) or clinic-based (CB) interventions. The estimated intervention cost per women was 43 dollars for TC, 71 dollars for PB, and 151 dollars for CB. CAN*TROL model showed that after 15 years of implementation, TC, PB, and CB could reduce cancer mortality by 6.5, 2.2, and 10.7%, respectively. The cumulative net costs of interventions, mammography screening, and medical care costs were lower for TC (TC vs. PB vs. CB, 1.05 million vs. 1.06 million vs. 1.60 million). Nevertheless, CB resulted in more life-years saved (TC vs. PB vs. CB, 11,413 vs. 8515 vs. 14,559). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was more favorable for tailored telephone counseling interventions. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that compliance rates and intervention costs had the most significant impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. CONCLUSION: Tailored telephone counseling interventions may be the preferred first-line intervention for getting nonadherent women aged 50 to 79 years on schedule for mammography screening.     

Use of patient reminder letters to promote cancer screening services in women: A population-based study in Wisconsin.

BACKGROUND: Patient reminder letters are an effective method of promoting cancer screening services in women; however, information on their actual use in a population setting is lacking. METHODS: Data were obtained from a population-based, random digit dial telephone survey of 896 adult women living in Wisconsin. Respondents were asked if they had received a reminder letter for Pap or mammography screening within the past year. RESULTS: Among women aged >/=18 years, 12.9% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 10.1-15. 6) received a Pap test reminder within the past year, while 13.0% (95% CI = 9.3-16.7) of women aged >/=40 years received a mammography reminder. Women without health care coverage were unlikely to receive either type of reminder. Current compliance with screening recommendations was greater among those women who received a reminder letter for Pap tests (94.3 versus 78.1%, P < 0.0001) and for mammography (81.7 versus 59.4%, P < 0.001). In contrast to the infrequent use of cancer screening reminders, 54.2% (95% CI = 50. 1-58.3) and 72.7% (95% CI = 67.6-77.8) of women reported receiving a reminder letter from their dentist or veterinarian, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reminder letters for cancer screening services were rarely utilized in this study population. Receipt of a reminder letter was associated with greater compliance with current screening recommendations.     

Reminder letter, tailored stepped-care, and self-choice comparison for repeat mammography

BACKGROUND: The main benefits of mammography come from regular on-schedule screening. However, few studies have examined interventions to achieve repeat screening. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were women aged 50 to 74, recruited through one setting in Rhode Island and another in North Carolina. Participants had a mammogram already scheduled at recruitment, and had to keep that appointment in order to be eligible for the repeat mammography intervention. A total of 1614 women were in the intervention sample. DESIGN: A four-group randomized design was used: Group 1, a simple reminder letter; Group 2, a 2-month, tailored, stepped intervention delivered 2 months after the completed mammogram; Group 3, a 10-month, tailored, stepped intervention delivered 2 months before the repeat mammogram was due; and Group 4, self-choice of one of the above three strategies. INTERVENTION: The intervention took place between June 1996 and May 1997. The reminder letter and two levels of the stepped intervention were delivered by mail. The third level of the stepped strategy was a counselor telephone call. Groups 2 and 3 were identical, except for timing. OUTCOME MEASURE: Obtaining the next due mammogram within 15 months, based on clinic records. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences among the four groups, both in the total sample and at the two sites separately. CONCLUSIONS: On average, a simple reminder may be as effective as more complex strategies for women with a prior on-schedule exam. However, attention is still needed to identify women at risk of lapsing from screening. Some women may require more-intensive interventions.     

Quality of life valuations of mammography screening

OBJECTIVE: To obtain quality-of-life (QOL) valuations associated with mammography screening and breast cancer treatment that are suitable for use in cost-effectiveness analyses. METHODS: Subjects comprised 131 women (age range 50-79 years) randomly sampled from a breast cancer screening program. In an in-person or telephone interview, women rated the QOL impact of 14 clinical scenarios (ranging from mammography to end-of-life care for breast cancer) using a visual analogue scale anchored by death (0) and perfect health/quality of life (100). RESULTS: Women rated the scenarios describing true negative results, false positive results, and routine screening mammography at 80 or above on a scale of 0-100, suggesting that they perceive these states as being close to perfect health. They rated adjuvant chemotherapy (39.7; range 10-90), palliation/end-of-life care (35.8; range 0-100), and recurrence at 1 year (33.0; range 0-95) the lowest, suggesting that these health states are perceived as compromised. Women rated receiving news of a breast cancer diagnosis (true positive) (45.7; range 5-100) and receiving delayed news of a breast cancer diagnosis (false negative) (48.5; range 5-100) as being comparable to undergoing mastectomy (48.3; range 10-100) and radiation therapy (46.2; range 5-100) for breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These data can be used to update cost analyses of mammography screening that wish to take into account the QOL impact of screening.     

Physician compliance with mammography guidelines: barriers and enhancers.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians are increasingly the gatekeepers to clinical preventive services including mammography utilization. Moreover, lack of physician recommendation is a major reason for patient failure to obtain screening. A study was designed to examine the attitudes, beliefs, and practices with regard to breast cancer screening as self-reported by primary care physicians. The variables associated with compliance or lack of compliance with screening guidelines are emphasized. METHODS: One hundred sixteen primary care physicians practicing in two New England communities responded to a mailed survey. The survey included questions on attitudes and beliefs about breast cancer screening, as well as questions about perceived barriers and actual screening practices. RESULTS: Fifty-seven percent of the respondents reported ordering annual mammograms for their female patients aged 50 to 75 years. An additional 21 percent reported ordering biannual mammograms for women in this age group. Strongly associated with ordering annual mammograms were beliefs in the benefits of mammography and the perception of community consensus regarding breast cancer screening. A strong positive association of practicing in a group setting and mammography guideline compliance was documented. Middle-aged physicians in solo practice reported the poorest screening compliance. CONCLUSIONS: The level of physician compliance with the standard of annual mammography screening is low (57 percent). The three most important determinants of annual screening suggest ways to improve physician compliance: improve physician attitudes about the benefits of mammography, build further on the medical community's consensus regarding the appropriateness and importance of the annual guidelines, target the poorest compliers with special messages or programs.     

Analysis of Cost-effectiveness of screening for breast cancer with conventional mammography, digital and magnetic resonance imaging

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in screening for breast cancer. The use of conventional mammography, digital and magnetic resonance imaging were compared with natural disease history as a baseline. A Markov model projected breast cancer in a group of 100,000 women for a 30 year period, with screening every two years. Four distinct scenarios were modeled: (1) the natural history of breast cancer, as a baseline, (2) conventional film mammography, (3) digital mammography and (4) magnetic resonance imaging. The costs of the scenarios modeled ranged from R$ 194.216,68 for natural history, to R$ 48.614.338,31, for screening with magnetic resonance imaging. The difference in effectiveness between the interventions ranged from 300 to 78.000 years of life gained in the cohort. The ratio of incremental cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per life-year gains, conventional mammographic screening has produced an extra year for R$ 13.573,07. The ICER of magnetic resonance imaging was R$ 2.904.328,88, compared to no screening. In conclusion, it is more cost-effective to perform the screening with conventional mammography than other technological interventions.     

Effect of continuing medical education and cost reduction on physician compliance with mammography screening guidelines

BACKGROUND. Primary care physicians perform breast cancer screening in women aged 50 years and older less frequently than recommended by national guidelines. METHODS. A multimethod continuing medical education (CME) intervention was tested in an attempt to increase breast cancer screening practices in a predominantly fee-for-service practice community in New York State. Preintervention and postintervention surveys of primary care physicians were conducted in 1988 and 1990, respectively. Project-initiated, low-cost mammography in one town and the unanticipated provision of free mammography services in another town under nonproject auspices permitted a comparison to be made between these towns and towns where mammography screening was provided at the prevailing fees to determine the impact that cost has on physicians' referral of women patients for mammography. RESULTS. Physicians practicing in the towns in which the CME intervention was provided showed a significant increase, consistent across specialty groups and greatest among family physicians, in the number of reported mammography referrals of asymptomatic women aged 50 to 75 years. Changes in the CME control town were smaller and not statistically significant for the sample size available. The increase in compliance was as large in the CME-intervention towns, one without (19%) and one with low-cost mammography (20%), as the increase in the town with free mammography alone (18%). There were no significant increases in reported performance of breast examination. CONCLUSIONS. A multimethod program of CME is a feasible approach to increasing community physician compliance with mammography screening guidelines, particularly among family physicians, and can enhance the impact of reduced cost or have at least the equivalent effect of free mammography services.     

Methodology for targeting physicians for interventions to improve breast cancer screening

INTRODUCTION: Uneven increases in mammography utilization rates call for methods to efficiently target educational interventions to women who do not regularly use mammography and physicians who do not adhere to national guidelines for breast cancer screening. This paper discusses a method for identifying physicians who are nonadherers to breast cancer screening guidelines or in need of continuing medical education (CME) in this area. METHODS: A 1995 community-based telephone survey of randomly selected women aged 50-80, residing in four Long Island, NY, townships was used to identify women who underuse mammography and their regular physicians. Community-based surveys of physicians permitted identification of nonadherent providers. Nonadherence to breast cancer screening recommendations was the primary criterion, but because of anticipated physician reluctance to self report nonadherence with screening guidelines, additional criteria were developed to identify physicians with educational needs relating to breast cancer screening. These criteria included lack of office reminder systems and knowledge relating to breast cancer screening, and lack of confidence in patient counseling and clinical breast examination skills. RESULTS: Overall response rates were 77% for women's survey, and 66% for the physician survey. 3427 women were classified as underusers (38.5%) and 87% of underusers provided the name and address of their regular physicians. By physician self report, 45% of physicians were classified as nonadherers and 42% were identified as having related educational needs. CONCLUSION: A feasible method for identifying physicians who are nonadherers to breast cancer screening recommendations or in need of CME about this is described, permitting efficient targeting of educational interventions to those with patients who underuse mammography. The method is not dependent on access to a specific provider or patient population.     

Patient reminder letters to promote annual mammograms: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the effects of a reminder letter from a physician (relative to a mammography facility letter or no letter) on appointment compliance among women 50-74 years of age due for an annual screening mammogram. METHODS: A total of 1,562 women were randomly as signed to the groups. Each Group 1 subject received a reminder letter from her physician, each Group 2 subject received a reminder letter from her mammography facility, and Group 3 served as a control group. RESULTS: The return rates for Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 47.7, 46.6, and 28.3%, respectively; the overall difference was significant using a chi(2) analysis (P < 0.001). Bonferroni pairwise comparisons indicated no difference between Groups 1 and 2 but significant differences (P < 0.001) between Group 3 and the other two groups. Logistic regression indicated that relative to Group 3, the adjusted odds of returning for Groups 1 and 2 were 2.37 and 2.24, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Mammography providers and their patients likely will benefit from in-reach reminder systems. Physicians who do not use reminder systems should refer their patients to facilities that use these systems.     

A systematic review of mammography educational interventions for low-income women

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to examine the effectiveness of educational interventions in increasing mammography screening among low-income women. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the ISI Web of Science, were searched for relevant articles. STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomized, community-based trials targeting low-income women and published between January 1980 and March 2003 were included. DATA EXTRACTION: The search yielded 242 studies; 24 met all inclusion criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three studies used mammography vans, three used low-cost vouchers or provided free mammograms, three used home visits, one used community education alone, one provided referrals, five incorporated multiple intervention strategies, two used phone calls, one used videos and print material, and five used primarily print material. RESULTS: Of nine studies that reduced barriers to care via mammography vans, cost vouchers, or home visits, eight showed statistically significant increases in mammography screening. Seven of the eight studies that used peer educators had significant increases in screening, as did four of the five studies that used multiple (intervention) components. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that used peer educators, incorporated multiple intervention strategies, or provided easy access via vans, cost vouchers, or home visits were effective in increasing screenings. Mailed letter or telephone reminders were not effective in trials involving low-income women, which is contrary to findings from middle/upper-income studies.     

Breast and cervical cancer screening for women between 50 and 69 years of age: what prompts women to screen?

The objective of this study was to examine mammography and cervical cancer screening rates among women aged 50 to 69 and to understand which prompts are effective for improving screening compliance. A self-administered survey was sent to 800 randomly selected participants in a health region in a relatively poor, rural province in Eastern Canada with a universal health care system. Since 1995, New Brunswick has instituted a biannual self-referral mammography screening program for women between 50 and 69 years of age. The response rate to the survey was 66%. Mammography screening compliance was 73% and was most significantly associated with annual clinical breast examinations, compliance with cervical cancer screening, and physician suggestion (p <.001). Cervical cancer screening compliance was 91% and was significantly associated with annual clinical breast examinations, compliance with mammography screening, and physician suggestion (p<.001). Contact with a physician is most effective for promoting screening compliance.     

Factors associated with repeat mammography screening

BACKGROUND: Even organizations with differing mammography recommendations agree that regular repeat screening is required for mortality reduction. However, most studies have focused on one-time screening rather than repeat adherence. We compare trends in beliefs and health-related behaviors among women screened and adherent to the National Cancer Institute's screening mammography recommendations (on schedule), those screened at least once and nonadherent (off schedule), and those never screened. METHODS: Our data are from a baseline telephone interview conducted among 1,287 female members of Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina who were aged either 40 to 44 years or 50 to 54 years. RESULTS: The 3 groups differed significantly on beliefs and health-related behaviors, with the off-schedule group almost consistently falling between the on-schedule and never screened groups. Off-schedule women were more likely than on-schedule women, but less likely than those never screened, to not have a clinical breast examination within 12 months, to be ambivalent about screening mammography, to be confused about screening guidelines, and to not be advised by a physician to get a mammogram in the past 2 years. Off-schedule women perceived their breast cancer risk as lower and were less likely to be up to date with other cancer screening tests. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that women who are off schedule are in need of mammography-promoting interventions, including recommendations from and discussion with their health care providers. Because they are more positive and knowledgeable about mammography than women who have never been screened, they may benefit from brief interventions from health care providers that highlight the importance of repeat screening.     

Tailored interventions to promote mammography screening: a meta-analytic review

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of tailored interventions, designed to reach one specific person based on her unique characteristics, for promoting mammography use. METHOD: This systematic review used meta-analytic techniques to aggregate the effect size of 28 studies published from 1997 through 2005. Potential study-level moderators of outcomes (sample, intervention, and methodological characteristics) were also examined. RESULTS: A small but significant aggregate odds ratio effect size of 1.42 indicated that women exposed to tailored interventions were significantly more likely to get a mammogram (p<0.001). The type of population recruited and participants' pre-intervention level of mammography adherence did not significantly influence this effect. Tailored interventions that used the Health Belief Model and included a physician recommendation produced the strongest effects. Interventions delivered in person, by telephone, or in print were similarly effective. Finally, defining adherence as a single recent mammogram as opposed to regular or repeated mammograms yielded higher effect sizes. CONCLUSION: Tailored interventions, particularly those that employ the Health Belief Model and use a physician recommendation, are effective in promoting mammography screening. Future investigations should strive to use more standardized definitions of tailoring and assessments of mammography outcomes.     

Development of a protocol for evaluation of mammographic surveillance services in women under 50 with a family history of breast cancer

BACKGROUND: Preliminary retrospective data suggest it is possible to identify impalpable breast cancer in women presenting with a family history of breast cancer under the age of 50, by using regular mammography. In consequence, this service is offered in a number of centres in the UK. The effectiveness of such a service, however, has not been fully evaluated. METHODS: We propose to perform such an evaluation in a cohort of 20000 women under the age of 50 with a significant family history of breast cancer, given regular mammographic surveillance over 5 years. Comparison of surgical and pathological data with completed and ongoing population screening trials using analysis techniques of varying complexity will be performed to obtain an accurate prediction of future breast-cancer mortality reduction. The formal aims are: i) to estimate the difference in breast-cancer mortality in women under the age of 50 with a significant family history of breast cancer having regular mammography, compared with those not being screened; ii) to estimate the cost-effectiveness of regular mammography in this group of women, compared with no screening. The increase in health service resource use attributable to such a policy will be compared with no screening, and costed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of implementing the standardised mammography strategy compared with no screening will be presented in terms of the additional cost per cancer detected, per life saved and per life-year saved.     

Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of mammography promotion by volunteers in rural communities.

The Community Trial of Breast Cancer Screening Promotion assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mammography promotion by community volunteer groups in rural areas using three different intervention approaches: individual counseling, community activities, and a combined intervention including both. Societal costs of the interventions were calculated and used in conjunction with measures of effectiveness to calculate cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per additional mammogram and cost per year of life saved. Methods of collecting and using cost information to assess the cost-effectiveness of community interventions are described. The Community Activities intervention was found to be the most cost-effective, at approximately $2,000 for each additional regular mammography user in the community. The cost per year of life saved associated with mammography promotion was approximately $56,000 per year of life saved. Exploratory analyses suggest that the most cost-effective method of promoting mammography use may vary with the target population.     

Using physician correspondence and postcard reminders to promote mammography use.

OBJECTIVES. In a health maintenance organization that mails letters to women recommending that they schedule mammograms, we conducted a randomized trial to evaluate simple methods of increasing the use of screening mammography. METHODS. Using a 2 x 2 factorial design, we tested the effects of (1) mailing the recommendation letter from each woman's primary care physician rather than from the program director and (2) sending a subsequent reminder postcard. RESULTS. Sending a reminder postcard nearly doubled the odds that women would get mammograms within 1 year (participate). The letter from the woman's personal physician had no effect. Attending a clinic more than 45 minutes from the screening center, being a current smoker, or being in fair or poor health were negatively associated with subsequently obtaining a mammogram. The odds of participation doubled if women had had previous mammograms. CONCLUSIONS. When preceded by written recommendations to schedule mammograms, reminder postcards effectively increased participation. Future randomized trials to promote use of screening mammography should compare interventions with a reminder condition.     

Cost-effectiveness of a tailored intervention to increase screening in HMO women overdue for Pap test and mammography services

BACKGROUND: Research has established the societal cost-effectiveness of providing breast and cervical cancer screening to women. Less is known about the cost of motivating women significantly overdue for services to receive screening. METHODS: In this intent-to-treat study, a total of 254 women, aged 52-69, who were overdue for both Pap test and mammography, were randomized to two groups, a tailored, motivational outreach or usual care. For effectiveness, we calculated the percent of women who received both services within 14 months of randomization. We used a comprehensive cost model to estimate total cost, per-participant cost, and the incremental cost-effectiveness of delivering the outreach intervention from the health plan perspective. We also conducted sensitivity analyses around two key parameters, target population size and level of effectiveness. RESULTS: Compared with usual care, outreach (P = 0.006) screened significantly more women. The intervention cost US dollars 167.62 (2000 U.S. dollars) for each woman randomized to outreach, and incremental cost-effectiveness of outreach over usual care was US dollars 818 per additional woman screened. Sensitivity analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness between Us dollars 19 and US dollars 90 per additional woman screened. CONCLUSIONS: Larger health plans can likely increase Pap test and mammography services in this population for a relatively low cost using this outreach intervention.     

Implementation issues and costs associated with a proven strategy for increasing breast and cervical cancer screening among low-income women.

Results from a randomized controlled trial demonstrated that a physician reminder letter combined with telephone counseling from a health educator significantly increased women's use of both mammograms and Pap tests in a low-income population in a managed care setting. This article presents results from a process evaluation and cost analysis of the intervention. An average of 35 minutes was spent preparing each of 304 intervention letters for mailing, including the time needed to secure signatures from 110 physicians. The results of an economic analysis suggested that this intervention cost $11.44 per recipient and $28.93 per screening test received above expected. However, intervention costs can be reduced significantly if one physician signs all letters (rather than each woman's own primary care physician) and if the health educator labor costs are diminished (e.g., by using student interns). Overall, the women under study reported that they are comfortable with both mailed and telephone reminders when they are post due for a clinical preventive service.