Testing Reminder and Motivational Telephone Calls to Increase Screening Mammography:a Randomized Study
BACKGROUND: Prospective randomized trials have demonstrated that motivational telephone calls increase adherence to screening mammography. To better understand the effects of motivational calls and to maximize adherence, we conducted a randomized trial among women aged 50-79 years. METHODS: We creat...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | JNCI : Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2000-02, Vol.92 (3), p.233-242 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 242 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 233 |
container_title | JNCI : Journal of the National Cancer Institute |
container_volume | 92 |
creator | Taplin, Stephen H. Barlow, William E. Ludman, Evette MacLehos, Richard Meyer, Dolores M. Seger, Deborah Herta, Douglas Chin, Craig Curry, Susan |
description | BACKGROUND: Prospective randomized trials have demonstrated that motivational telephone calls increase adherence to screening mammography. To better understand the effects of motivational calls and to maximize adherence, we conducted a randomized trial among women aged 50-79 years. METHODS: We created a stratified random sample of 5062 women due for mammograms within the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, including 4099 women with prior mammography and 963 without it. We recruited and surveyed 3743 (74%) of the women before mailing a recommendation. After 2 months, 1765 (47%) of the 3743 women had not scheduled a mammogram and were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: a reminder postcard group (n = 590), a reminder telephone call group (n = 585), and a motivational telephone call addressing barriers group (n = 590). The telephone callers could schedule mammography. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for documented mammography use by 1 year. RESULTS: Women who received reminder calls were more likely to get mammograms (HR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.6-2.4) than women who were mailed postcards. The motivational and reminder calls (average length, 8.5 and 3.1 minutes, respectively) had equivalent effects (HR= 0.97; 95% CI = 0.8-1.2). After we controlled for the intervention effect, women with prior mammography (n = 1277) were much more likely to get a mammogram (HR= 3.4; 95% CI = 2.7-4.3) than women without prior use (n = 488). Higher income, but not race or more education, was associated with higher adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Reminding women to schedule an appointment was as efficacious as addressing barriers. Simple intervention groups should be included as comparison groups in randomized trials so that we better understand morecomplex intervention effects. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/jnci/92.3.233 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70864855</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70864855</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-967aa5a86930362ccaad8b752aa7f9542959656c13a107466504a0220fac1a2b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkM1vEzEQxS0EoqFw5Ip8QNw29bfX3FAETVErpDagios18Xpbl1072BtE-OtxlIgyl3eY33ujeQi9pmROieFnD9GFM8PmfM44f4JmVCjSMErkUzQjhOmmbbU4QS9KeSB1DBPP0QklSkohyAz1K1-mEO_wtR9D7HzGEDt8labwC6aQIgx45Qe_uU_R4wUMQ8FTwhfRZQ_F45uqPu79VzCO6S7D5n73HvB1TUlj-OM7fDNtu91L9KyHofhXRz1FXz99XC2WzeWX84vFh8vGcSOnxigNIKFVhhOumHMAXbvWkgHo3kjBjDRKKkc5UKKFUpIIIIyRHhwFtuan6N0hd5PTz219zY6hOD8MEH3aFqtJq0QrZQWbA-hyKiX73m5yGCHvLCV2X6zdF2sNs9zWYiv_5hi8XY---48-NFmBt0cAioOhz1D95ZFjZn_48W4ok__9bw35h1Waa2mXt98tW5Ll5_NbY7_xv8HVkF0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70864855</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Testing Reminder and Motivational Telephone Calls to Increase Screening Mammography:a Randomized Study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Taplin, Stephen H. ; Barlow, William E. ; Ludman, Evette ; MacLehos, Richard ; Meyer, Dolores M. ; Seger, Deborah ; Herta, Douglas ; Chin, Craig ; Curry, Susan</creator><creatorcontrib>Taplin, Stephen H. ; Barlow, William E. ; Ludman, Evette ; MacLehos, Richard ; Meyer, Dolores M. ; Seger, Deborah ; Herta, Douglas ; Chin, Craig ; Curry, Susan</creatorcontrib><description>BACKGROUND: Prospective randomized trials have demonstrated that motivational telephone calls increase adherence to screening mammography. To better understand the effects of motivational calls and to maximize adherence, we conducted a randomized trial among women aged 50-79 years. METHODS: We created a stratified random sample of 5062 women due for mammograms within the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, including 4099 women with prior mammography and 963 without it. We recruited and surveyed 3743 (74%) of the women before mailing a recommendation. After 2 months, 1765 (47%) of the 3743 women had not scheduled a mammogram and were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: a reminder postcard group (n = 590), a reminder telephone call group (n = 585), and a motivational telephone call addressing barriers group (n = 590). The telephone callers could schedule mammography. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for documented mammography use by 1 year. RESULTS: Women who received reminder calls were more likely to get mammograms (HR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.6-2.4) than women who were mailed postcards. The motivational and reminder calls (average length, 8.5 and 3.1 minutes, respectively) had equivalent effects (HR= 0.97; 95% CI = 0.8-1.2). After we controlled for the intervention effect, women with prior mammography (n = 1277) were much more likely to get a mammogram (HR= 3.4; 95% CI = 2.7-4.3) than women without prior use (n = 488). Higher income, but not race or more education, was associated with higher adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Reminding women to schedule an appointment was as efficacious as addressing barriers. Simple intervention groups should be included as comparison groups in randomized trials so that we better understand morecomplex intervention effects.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0027-8874</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1460-2105</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/jnci/92.3.233</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10655440</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cary, NC: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Affect ; Aged ; Biological and medical sciences ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - prevention & control ; Female ; Genital system. Mammary gland ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice ; Humans ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Mammary gland diseases ; Mammography - statistics & numerical data ; Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Motivation ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Prospective Studies ; Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry ; Risk ; Social Values ; Telephone ; Treatment Outcome ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>JNCI : Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2000-02, Vol.92 (3), p.233-242</ispartof><rights>2000 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-967aa5a86930362ccaad8b752aa7f9542959656c13a107466504a0220fac1a2b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-967aa5a86930362ccaad8b752aa7f9542959656c13a107466504a0220fac1a2b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=1296485$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10655440$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Taplin, Stephen H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barlow, William E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ludman, Evette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacLehos, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyer, Dolores M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seger, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herta, Douglas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chin, Craig</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Curry, Susan</creatorcontrib><title>Testing Reminder and Motivational Telephone Calls to Increase Screening Mammography:a Randomized Study</title><title>JNCI : Journal of the National Cancer Institute</title><addtitle>JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst</addtitle><description>BACKGROUND: Prospective randomized trials have demonstrated that motivational telephone calls increase adherence to screening mammography. To better understand the effects of motivational calls and to maximize adherence, we conducted a randomized trial among women aged 50-79 years. METHODS: We created a stratified random sample of 5062 women due for mammograms within the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, including 4099 women with prior mammography and 963 without it. We recruited and surveyed 3743 (74%) of the women before mailing a recommendation. After 2 months, 1765 (47%) of the 3743 women had not scheduled a mammogram and were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: a reminder postcard group (n = 590), a reminder telephone call group (n = 585), and a motivational telephone call addressing barriers group (n = 590). The telephone callers could schedule mammography. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for documented mammography use by 1 year. RESULTS: Women who received reminder calls were more likely to get mammograms (HR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.6-2.4) than women who were mailed postcards. The motivational and reminder calls (average length, 8.5 and 3.1 minutes, respectively) had equivalent effects (HR= 0.97; 95% CI = 0.8-1.2). After we controlled for the intervention effect, women with prior mammography (n = 1277) were much more likely to get a mammogram (HR= 3.4; 95% CI = 2.7-4.3) than women without prior use (n = 488). Higher income, but not race or more education, was associated with higher adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Reminding women to schedule an appointment was as efficacious as addressing barriers. Simple intervention groups should be included as comparison groups in randomized trials so that we better understand morecomplex intervention effects.</description><subject>Affect</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - prevention & control</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Genital system. Mammary gland</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Mammary gland diseases</subject><subject>Mammography - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Motivation</subject><subject>Proportional Hazards Models</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>Social Values</subject><subject>Telephone</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>0027-8874</issn><issn>1460-2105</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkM1vEzEQxS0EoqFw5Ip8QNw29bfX3FAETVErpDagios18Xpbl1072BtE-OtxlIgyl3eY33ujeQi9pmROieFnD9GFM8PmfM44f4JmVCjSMErkUzQjhOmmbbU4QS9KeSB1DBPP0QklSkohyAz1K1-mEO_wtR9D7HzGEDt8labwC6aQIgx45Qe_uU_R4wUMQ8FTwhfRZQ_F45uqPu79VzCO6S7D5n73HvB1TUlj-OM7fDNtu91L9KyHofhXRz1FXz99XC2WzeWX84vFh8vGcSOnxigNIKFVhhOumHMAXbvWkgHo3kjBjDRKKkc5UKKFUpIIIIyRHhwFtuan6N0hd5PTz219zY6hOD8MEH3aFqtJq0QrZQWbA-hyKiX73m5yGCHvLCV2X6zdF2sNs9zWYiv_5hi8XY---48-NFmBt0cAioOhz1D95ZFjZn_48W4ok__9bw35h1Waa2mXt98tW5Ll5_NbY7_xv8HVkF0</recordid><startdate>20000202</startdate><enddate>20000202</enddate><creator>Taplin, Stephen H.</creator><creator>Barlow, William E.</creator><creator>Ludman, Evette</creator><creator>MacLehos, Richard</creator><creator>Meyer, Dolores M.</creator><creator>Seger, Deborah</creator><creator>Herta, Douglas</creator><creator>Chin, Craig</creator><creator>Curry, Susan</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000202</creationdate><title>Testing Reminder and Motivational Telephone Calls to Increase Screening Mammography:a Randomized Study</title><author>Taplin, Stephen H. ; Barlow, William E. ; Ludman, Evette ; MacLehos, Richard ; Meyer, Dolores M. ; Seger, Deborah ; Herta, Douglas ; Chin, Craig ; Curry, Susan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-967aa5a86930362ccaad8b752aa7f9542959656c13a107466504a0220fac1a2b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Affect</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - prevention & control</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Genital system. Mammary gland</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Mammary gland diseases</topic><topic>Mammography - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Motivation</topic><topic>Proportional Hazards Models</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>Social Values</topic><topic>Telephone</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Taplin, Stephen H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barlow, William E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ludman, Evette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacLehos, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyer, Dolores M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seger, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herta, Douglas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chin, Craig</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Curry, Susan</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>JNCI : Journal of the National Cancer Institute</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Taplin, Stephen H.</au><au>Barlow, William E.</au><au>Ludman, Evette</au><au>MacLehos, Richard</au><au>Meyer, Dolores M.</au><au>Seger, Deborah</au><au>Herta, Douglas</au><au>Chin, Craig</au><au>Curry, Susan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Testing Reminder and Motivational Telephone Calls to Increase Screening Mammography:a Randomized Study</atitle><jtitle>JNCI : Journal of the National Cancer Institute</jtitle><addtitle>JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst</addtitle><date>2000-02-02</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>92</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>233</spage><epage>242</epage><pages>233-242</pages><issn>0027-8874</issn><eissn>1460-2105</eissn><abstract>BACKGROUND: Prospective randomized trials have demonstrated that motivational telephone calls increase adherence to screening mammography. To better understand the effects of motivational calls and to maximize adherence, we conducted a randomized trial among women aged 50-79 years. METHODS: We created a stratified random sample of 5062 women due for mammograms within the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, including 4099 women with prior mammography and 963 without it. We recruited and surveyed 3743 (74%) of the women before mailing a recommendation. After 2 months, 1765 (47%) of the 3743 women had not scheduled a mammogram and were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: a reminder postcard group (n = 590), a reminder telephone call group (n = 585), and a motivational telephone call addressing barriers group (n = 590). The telephone callers could schedule mammography. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for documented mammography use by 1 year. RESULTS: Women who received reminder calls were more likely to get mammograms (HR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.6-2.4) than women who were mailed postcards. The motivational and reminder calls (average length, 8.5 and 3.1 minutes, respectively) had equivalent effects (HR= 0.97; 95% CI = 0.8-1.2). After we controlled for the intervention effect, women with prior mammography (n = 1277) were much more likely to get a mammogram (HR= 3.4; 95% CI = 2.7-4.3) than women without prior use (n = 488). Higher income, but not race or more education, was associated with higher adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Reminding women to schedule an appointment was as efficacious as addressing barriers. Simple intervention groups should be included as comparison groups in randomized trials so that we better understand morecomplex intervention effects.</abstract><cop>Cary, NC</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>10655440</pmid><doi>10.1093/jnci/92.3.233</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0027-8874 |
ispartof | JNCI : Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2000-02, Vol.92 (3), p.233-242 |
issn | 0027-8874 1460-2105 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70864855 |
source | MEDLINE; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Affect Aged Biological and medical sciences Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Breast Neoplasms - prevention & control Female Genital system. Mammary gland Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice Humans Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) Mammary gland diseases Mammography - statistics & numerical data Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data Medical sciences Middle Aged Motivation Proportional Hazards Models Prospective Studies Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry Risk Social Values Telephone Treatment Outcome Tumors |
title | Testing Reminder and Motivational Telephone Calls to Increase Screening Mammography:a Randomized Study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T08%3A59%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Testing%20Reminder%20and%20Motivational%20Telephone%20Calls%20to%20Increase%20Screening%20Mammography:a%20Randomized%20Study&rft.jtitle=JNCI%20:%20Journal%20of%20the%20National%20Cancer%20Institute&rft.au=Taplin,%20Stephen%20H.&rft.date=2000-02-02&rft.volume=92&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=233&rft.epage=242&rft.pages=233-242&rft.issn=0027-8874&rft.eissn=1460-2105&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/jnci/92.3.233&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70864855%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=70864855&rft_id=info:pmid/10655440&rfr_iscdi=true |