Design and methods for a randomized clinical trial comparing three outreach efforts to improve screening mammography adherence.

Mary E Costanza, Roger Luckmann, Mary Jo White, Milagros C Rosal, Caroline Cranos, George Reed, Robin Clark, Susan Sama, Robert Yood
Author Information
  1. Mary E Costanza: Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655, USA. mary.costanza@umassmed.edu

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite the demonstrated need to increase screening mammography utilization and strong evidence that mail and telephone outreach to women can increase screening, most managed care organizations have not adopted comprehensive outreach programs. The uncertainty about optimum strategies and cost effectiveness have retarded widespread acceptance. While 70% of women report getting a mammogram within the prior 2 years, repeat mammography rates are less than 50%. This 5-year study is conducted though a Central Massachusetts healthcare plan and affiliated clinic. All women have adequate health insurance to cover the test.
METHODS/DESIGN: This randomized study compares 3 arms: reminder letter alone; reminder letter plus reminder call; reminder letter plus a second reminder and booklet plus a counselor call. All calls provide women with the opportunity to schedule a mammogram in a reasonable time. The invention period will span 4 years and include repeat attempts. The counselor arm is designed to educate, motivate and counsel women in an effort to alleviate PCP burden.All women who have been in the healthcare plan for 24 months and who have a current primary care provider (PCP) and who are aged 51-84 are randomized to 1 of 3 arms. Interventions are limited to women who become ≥ 18 months from a prior mammogram. Women and their physicians may opt out of the intervention study.Measurement of completed mammograms will use plan billing records and clinic electronic records. The primary outcome is the proportion of women continuously enrolled for ≥ 24 months who have had ≥ 1 mammogram in the last 24 months. Secondary outcomes include the number of women who need repeat interventions. The cost effectiveness analysis will measure all costs from the provider perspective.
DISCUSSION: So far, 18,509 women aged 51-84 have been enrolled into our tracking database and were randomized into one of three arms. At baseline, 5,223 women were eligible for an intervention. We anticipate that the outcome will provide firm data about the maximal effectiveness as well as the cost effectiveness of the interventions both for increasing the mammography rate and the repeat mammography rate.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov/NCT01332032.

Associated Data

ClinicalTrials.gov | NCT01332032

References

  1. Health Psychol. 1988;7(4):355-86 [PMID: 3049068]
  2. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997 May 21;89(10):703-8 [PMID: 9168185]
  3. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1996 Aug;22(3):439-48 [PMID: 8841690]
  4. Prev Med. 2007 Oct;45(4):252-61 [PMID: 17643481]
  5. Health Educ Q. 1994 Spring;21(1):55-68 [PMID: 8188493]
  6. Am J Prev Med. 2000 Jan;18(1):1-10 [PMID: 10808977]
  7. J Gen Intern Med. 1986 Sep-Oct;1(5):275-81 [PMID: 3772615]
  8. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Feb 2;92(3):233-42 [PMID: 10655440]
  9. Ann Behav Med. 2003 Dec;26(3):201-11 [PMID: 14644696]
  10. Am J Prev Med. 1998 Jan;14(1):64-70 [PMID: 9476837]
  11. Am J Public Health. 1994 Apr;84(4):571-4 [PMID: 8154558]
  12. Am J Prev Med. 2009 Jun;36(6):459-67 [PMID: 19362800]
  13. Am J Prev Med. 2010 Oct;39(4):334-44 [PMID: 20837284]
  14. Cancer Detect Prev. 2003;27(6):442-50 [PMID: 14642552]
  15. Mayo Clin Proc. 1993 Aug;68(8):785-91 [PMID: 8331981]
  16. Pediatrics. 2001 Jul;108(1):18-24 [PMID: 11433049]
  17. J Clin Oncol. 1992 Feb;10(2):330-3 [PMID: 1732434]
  18. Prev Med. 2004 Apr;38(4):403-11 [PMID: 15020173]
  19. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010 Jul 9;59(26):813-6 [PMID: 20613705]
  20. Prev Med. 2005 Sep-Oct;41(3-4):734-40 [PMID: 16043216]
  21. Am J Prev Med. 2002 May;22(4):247-57 [PMID: 11988381]
  22. Arthritis Care Res. 1996 Oct;9(5):391-9 [PMID: 8997929]
  23. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Jul 21;102(14):1023-39 [PMID: 20587790]
  24. Psychiatr Serv. 1998 Mar;49(3):312-4 [PMID: 9525789]
  25. Cancer. 1993 Aug 1;72(3 Suppl):1093-9 [PMID: 8334664]
  26. Prev Med. 1999 Nov;29(5):374-82 [PMID: 10564629]
  27. Health Psychol. 1993 May;12(3):209-14 [PMID: 8500450]
  28. Fam Med. 1999 May;31(5):324-6 [PMID: 10407709]
  29. Am J Public Health. 1994 Jan;84(1):104-6 [PMID: 8279593]
  30. Am J Public Health. 1997 Oct;87(10):1683-6 [PMID: 9357355]
  31. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996 Feb;64(1):202-11 [PMID: 8907100]
  32. Patient Educ Couns. 1999 May;37(1):3-18 [PMID: 10640115]
  33. Patient Educ Couns. 2001 Jun;43(3):269-85 [PMID: 11384825]
  34. Lancet. 1993 Apr 17;341(8851):973-8 [PMID: 8096941]
  35. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Dec 1;23(34):8877-83 [PMID: 16314648]
  36. Arch Intern Med. 1997 Feb 10;157(3):309-14 [PMID: 9040298]
  37. Prim Care. 1989 Mar;16(1):245-50 [PMID: 2649905]
  38. Health Serv Res. 2000 Dec;35(5 Pt 1):1037-57 [PMID: 11130802]
  39. J Fam Pract. 1997 Mar;44(3):293-8 [PMID: 9071250]
  40. Prev Med. 2000 Oct;31(4):315-22 [PMID: 11006056]
  41. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001 Mar;101(3):332-41 [PMID: 11269614]
  42. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Oct 20;96(20):1518-27 [PMID: 15494602]
  43. Patient Educ Couns. 2001 Jun;43(3):287-99 [PMID: 11384826]
  44. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Jun 17;148(12):956-61 [PMID: 18483128]
  45. J Cancer Educ. 1992;7(1):55-60 [PMID: 1571246]
  46. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Aug;173(2):285-9 [PMID: 10430120]
  47. Prev Med. 2004 Jan;38(1):20-7 [PMID: 14672638]
  48. Health Psychol. 1992;11(3):170-80 [PMID: 1618171]
  49. Am J Prev Med. 2000 Jul;19(1):39-46 [PMID: 10865162]
  50. Health Psychol. 1994 Jan;13(1):39-46 [PMID: 8168470]
  51. Manag Care. 2007 Jun;16(6):24-6, 28-30 [PMID: 17682734]
  52. J Cancer Educ. 2008;23(2):114-21 [PMID: 18569247]
  53. Nutr Cancer. 1997;28(3):282-8 [PMID: 9343838]
  54. Am J Public Health. 2001 Oct;91(10):1686-93 [PMID: 11574336]
  55. Am J Prev Med. 1997 Jul-Aug;13(4):298-302 [PMID: 9236968]
  56. Am J Public Health. 2003 Apr;93(4):635-41 [PMID: 12660210]
  57. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1996 May-Jun;13(3):203-10 [PMID: 9017562]
  58. Am J Health Promot. 1997 Mar-Apr;11(4):247-9 [PMID: 10165517]
  59. Ann Behav Med. 2009 Jun;37(3):343-9 [PMID: 19517203]

Grants

  1. R01CA 132935/NCI NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Community-Institutional Relations
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cross-Sectional Studies
Early Detection of Cancer
Female
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Humans
Mammography
Managed Care Programs
Middle Aged
Patient Compliance
Patient Satisfaction
Research Design
United States
Women's Health

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0womenmammographyremindereffectivenessmammogramrepeatrandomizedwillmonthsscreeningoutreachcoststudyplanletterplus24needincreasecareprioryearshealthcareclinic3callcounselorprovideincludePCPprimaryprovideraged51-841arms18interventionrecordsoutcomeenrolledinterventionsthreerateBACKGROUND:Despitedemonstratedutilizationstrongevidencemailtelephonecanmanagedorganizationsadoptedcomprehensiveprogramsuncertaintyoptimumstrategiesretardedwidespreadacceptance70%reportgettingwithin2ratesless50%5-yearconductedthoughCentralMassachusettsaffiliatedadequatehealthinsurancecovertestMETHODS/DESIGN:comparesarms:alonesecondbookletcallsopportunityschedulereasonabletimeinventionperiodspan4attemptsarmdesignededucatemotivatecounseleffortalleviateburdenAllcurrentInterventionslimitedbecomeWomenphysiciansmayoptMeasurementcompletedmammogramsusebillingelectronicproportioncontinuouslylastSecondaryoutcomesnumberanalysismeasurecostsperspectiveDISCUSSION:far509trackingdatabaseonebaseline5223eligibleanticipatefirmdatamaximalwellincreasingTRIALREGISTRATION:http://clinicaltrialsgov/NCT01332032Designmethodsclinicaltrialcomparingeffortsimproveadherence

Similar Articles

Cited By (2)