Testing Reminder and Motivational Telephone Calls to Increase Screening Mammography: a Randomized Study
Open Access
- 2 February 2000
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Vol. 92 (3) , 233-242
- https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.3.233
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.Keywords
This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- Participation in a Breast Cancer Screening Program: Influence of Past Behavior and Determinants on Future Screening ParticipationPreventive Medicine, 1997
- Evaluation of a Phone Intervention to Promote Mammography in a Managed Care PlanAmerican Journal of Health Promotion, 1997
- A Meta-analysis of 16 Randomized Controlled Trials to Evaluate Computer-Based Clinical Reminder Systems for Preventive Care in the Ambulatory SettingJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 1996
- Two Sequential Randomized Trials of Community Participation to Recruit Women for Mammographic ScreeningPreventive Medicine, 1996
- Promoting Screening Mammography in Inner-City Settings: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Computerized Reminders as a Component of a Program to Facilitate MammographyMedical Care, 1994
- A test of an expanded theory of reasoned action to predict mammography participationSocial Science & Medicine, 1991
- Participation in breast screening programs: A reviewSocial Science & Medicine, 1990
- The Swedish two county trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer: recent results and calculation of benefit.Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1989
- The accuracy of mammography alone and in combination with clinical examination and cytology in the detection of breast cancerClinical Radiology, 1988
- The health belief model and participation in programmes for the early detection of breast cancer: A comparative analysisSocial Science & Medicine, 1984