Improving attendance for breast screening among recent non-attenders: a randomised controlled trial of two interventions in primary care

被引:32
作者
Bankhead, C
Richards, SH
Peters, TJ
Sharp, DJ
Hobbs, FDR
Brown, J
Roberts, L
Tydeman, C
Redman, V
Formby, J
Wilson, S
Austoker, J
机构
[1] Univ Oxford, Inst Hlth Sci, CRC Primary Care Educ Res Grp, Oxford OX3 7LF, England
[2] Univ Bristol, Dept Social Med, Bristol BS8 1TH, Avon, England
[3] Univ Bristol, Div Primary Hlth Care, Bristol BS8 1TH, Avon, England
[4] Univ Birmingham, Div Primary Care Publ & Occupat Hlth, Birmingham B15 2TT, W Midlands, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
randomised controlled trial; breast screening; uptake; recent non-attenders; primary care;
D O I
10.1136/jms.8.2.99
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Objectives-To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two primary care based interventions aimed at increasing breast screening uptake for women who had recently failed to attend. Setting-13 General practices with low uptake in the second round of breast screening (below 60%) in north west London and the West Midlands, United Kingdom. Participants were women in these practices who were recent non-attenders for breast screening in the third round. Methods-Pragmatic factorial randomised controlled trial, with people randomised to a systematic intervention (general practitioner letter), an opportunistic intervention (flag in women's notes prompting discussion by health professionals), neither intervention, or both. Outcome measures were attendance for screening 6 months after randomisation and cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Results-1158 Women were individually randomised as follows: 289 control; 291 letter; 290 flag; 288 both interventions. Attendance was ascertained for 1148 (99%) of the 1158 women. Logistic regression adjusting for the other intervention and practice produced an odds ratio (OR) for attendance of 1.51 (95% confidence interval (95% CI 1.02 to 2.26; p=0.04) for the letter, and 1.39 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.10) for the flag. Health service costs/additional attendance were pound 35 (letter) and pound 65 (flag). Conclusions-Among recent nonattenders, the letter was effective in increasing breast screening attendance. The flag was of equivocal effectiveness and was considerably less cost-effective than the letter.
引用
收藏
页码:99 / 105
页数:7
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]   Improving uptake of breast screening in multiethnic populations: a randomised controlled trial using practice reception staff to contact non-attenders [J].
Atri, J ;
Falshaw, M ;
Gregg, R ;
Robson, J ;
Omar, RZ ;
Dixon, S .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1997, 315 (7119) :1356-1359
[2]   Gaining informed consent for screening [J].
Austoker, J .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1999, 319 (7212) :722-723
[3]  
AUSTOKER J, 1993, BREAST SCREENING ACC, V28
[4]   Mammogram utilization among farm women [J].
Carr, WP ;
Maldonado, G ;
Leonard, PR ;
Halberg, JU ;
Church, TR ;
Mandel, JH ;
Dowd, B ;
Mandel, JS .
JOURNAL OF RURAL HEALTH, 1996, 12 (04) :278-290
[5]   BREAST-CANCER SCREENING PROGRAMS - THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM [J].
DAY, NE ;
WILLIAMS, DRR ;
KHAW, KT .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 1989, 59 (06) :954-958
[6]   THE IMPACT OF PHYSICIAN COMPLIANCE ON SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY FOR OLDER WOMEN [J].
FOX, SA ;
MURATA, PJ ;
STEIN, JA .
ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1991, 151 (01) :50-56
[7]   Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? [J].
Gotzsche, PC ;
Olsen, O .
LANCET, 2000, 355 (9198) :129-134
[8]  
*GOV STAT SERV, 1998, STAT B BREAST SCREEN
[9]  
*HLTH ED AUTH, 1996, NHS BREAST SCREEN FA
[10]  
Jepson R., 2000, Health Technology Assessment, V4, P1, DOI DOI 10.3310/HTA4140