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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JNCI : Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2000-02, Vol.92 (3), p.233-242
Hauptverfasser: Taplin, Stephen H., Barlow, William E., Ludman, Evette, MacLehos, Richard, Meyer, Dolores M., Seger, Deborah, Herta, Douglas, Chin, Craig, Curry, Susan
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 &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data ; Mass Screening - statistics &amp; 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&amp;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 &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Mass Screening - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Mass Screening - statistics &amp; 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