© 2000 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 92, No. 3, 233-242,
February 2, 2000
© 2000 Oxford University Press
Testing Reminder and Motivational Telephone Calls to Increase Screening Mammography: a Randomized Study
Affiliations of authors: S. H. Taplin (Department of Family Medicine) W. E. Barlow (Department of Biostatistics), S. Curry (Department of Health Services), University of Washington, Seattle, and Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Center for Health Studies, Seattle; E. Ludman, R. MacLehos, D. M. Meyer, D. Seger, D. Herta, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Center for Health Studies, Seattle; C. Chin, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Center for Health Studies, and Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.
Correspondence to: Stephen H. Taplin, M.D., M.P.H., Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, 1730 Minor Ave., Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101-1448 (e-mail: taplin.s{at}ghc.org).
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.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. K.J. Han, S. C. Kobrin, W. M.P. Klein, W. W. Davis, M. Stefanek, and S. H. Taplin Perceived Ambiguity about Screening Mammography Recommendations: Association with Future Mammography Uptake and Perceptions Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., March 1, 2007; 16(3): 458 - 466. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. S. Wolf, K. A. Fitzner, E. F. Powell, K. R. McCaffrey, A. S. Pickard, J. M. McKoy, J. Lindenberg, G. T. Schumock, K. R. Carson, M. R. Ferreira, et al. Costs and Cost Effectiveness of a Health Care Provider-Directed Intervention to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Veterans J. Clin. Oncol., December 1, 2005; 23(34): 8877 - 8883. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. G. Crawford, V. Sikirica, N. Goldfarb, R. G. Popiel, M. Patel, C. Wang, J. B. Chu, and D. B. Nash Interactive Voice Response Reminder Effects on Preventive Service Utilization American Journal of Medical Quality, November 1, 2005; 20(6): 329 - 336. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Puleo, J. G. Zapka, K. V. Goins, M. U. Yood, J. Mouchawar, M. Manos, C. Somkin, and S. Taplin Recommendations for Care Related to Follow-Up of Abnormal Cancer Screening Tests: Accuracy of Patient Report Eval Health Prof, September 1, 2005; 28(3): 310 - 327. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Michielutte, P. C. Sharp, K. L. Foley, L. E. Cunningham, J. G. Spangler, E. D. Paskett, and L. D. Case Intervention to increase screening mammography among women 65 and older Health Educ. Res., April 1, 2005; 20(2): 149 - 162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. M. Linden, S. Ramsey, and N. Anderson An Ounce of Prevention or a Pound of Cure? Investing to Improve Breast Cancer Outcomes for African American Women J. Clin. Oncol., July 1, 2004; 22(13): 2517 - 2518. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Eaker, H.-O. Adami, F. Granath, E. Wilander, and P. Sparen A Large Population-Based Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Attendance at Screening for Cervical Cancer Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., March 1, 2004; 13(3): 346 - 354. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. H. Taplin, L. Ichikawa, D. S. M. Buist, D. Seger, and E. White Evaluating Organized Breast Cancer Screening Implementation: The Prevention of Late-Stage Disease? Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2004; 13(2): 225 - 234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. R. Partin and J. S. Slater Promoting Repeat Mammography Use: Insights From a Systematic Needs Assessment Health Educ Behav, February 1, 2003; 30(1): 97 - 112. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Resnicow, A. Jackson, R. Braithwaite, C. DiIorio, D. Blisset, S. Rahotep, and S. Periasamy Healthy Body/Healthy Spirit: a church-based nutrition and physical activity intervention Health Educ. Res., October 1, 2002; 17(5): 562 - 573. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|