Interventions to Promote Repeat Breast Cancer Screening With Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

被引:42
作者
Vernon, Sally W. [1 ]
McQueen, Amy [2 ]
Tiro, Jasmin A. [3 ]
del Junco, Deborah J. [4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas Sch Publ Hlth, Ctr Hlth Promot & Prevent Res, Div Hlth Promot & Behav Sci, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Washington Univ, Sch Med, Dept Med, Div Hlth Behav Res, St Louis, MO 63110 USA
[3] Univ Texas SW Med Ctr Dallas, Dept Clin Sci, Div Behav & Commun Sci, Dallas, TX 75390 USA
[4] Univ Texas Med Sch, Dept Surg & Pediat, Houston, TX USA
[5] Univ Texas Sch Publ Hlth, Div Epidemiol Human Genet & Environm Sci, Houston, TX USA
来源
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE | 2010年 / 102卷 / 14期
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
CLIENT-DIRECTED INTERVENTIONS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; TAILORED INTERVENTIONS; PATIENT REMINDERS; COLORECTAL-CANCER; HEALTH BELIEF; WOMEN; CARE; ADHERENCE; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1093/jnci/djq223
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Various interventions to promote repeat use of mammography have been evaluated, but the efficacy of such interventions is not well understood. We searched electronic databases through August 15, 2009, and extracted data to calculate unadjusted effect estimates (odds ratios [ORs] and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]). Eligible studies were those that reported estimates of repeat screening for intervention and control groups. We tested homogeneity and computed summary odds ratios. To explore possible causes of heterogeneity, we performed stratified analyses, examined meta-regression models for 15 a priori explanatory variables, and conducted influence analyses. We used funnel plots and asymmetry tests to assess publication bias. Statistical tests were two-sided. The 25 eligible studies (27 effect estimates) were statistically significantly heterogeneous (Q = 69.5, I (2) = 63%, P < .001). Although there were homogeneous subgroups in some categories of the 15 explanatory variables, heterogeneity persisted after stratification. For all but one explanatory variable, subgroup summary odds ratios were similar with overlapping confidence intervals. The summary odds ratio for the eight heterogeneous reminder-only studies was the largest observed (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.41 to 2.29) and was statistically significantly greater than the summary odds ratio (P-diff = .008) for the homogeneous group of 17 studies that used the more intensive strategies of education/motivation or counseling (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.37). However, reminder-only studies remained statistically significantly heterogeneous, whereas the studies classified as education/motivation or counseling were homogeneous. Similarly, in meta-regression modeling, the only statistically significant predictor of the intervention effect size was intervention strategy (reminder-only vs the other two combined as the referent). Publication bias was not apparent. The observed heterogeneity precludes a summary effect estimate. We also cannot conclude that reminder-only intervention strategies are more effective than alternate strategies. Additional studies are needed to identify methods or strategies that could increase repeat mammography.
引用
收藏
页码:1023 / 1039
页数:17
相关论文
共 88 条
[11]  
Bodiya A, 1999, Fam Med, V31, P324
[12]  
Bonfill X., 2001, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, V1, DOI [10.1002/14651858.CD002943, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD002943]
[13]   Reported drop in mammography - Is this cause for concern? [J].
Breen, Nancy ;
Cronin, Kathleen A. ;
Meissner, Helen I. ;
Taplin, Stephen H. ;
Tangka, Florence K. ;
Tiro, Jasmin A. ;
McNeel, Timothy S. .
CANCER, 2007, 109 (12) :2405-2409
[14]   Promoting screening mammography in inner-city settings - The sustained effectiveness of computerized reminders in a randomized controlled trial [J].
Burack, RC ;
Gimotty, PA .
MEDICAL CARE, 1997, 35 (09) :921-931
[15]   Impact of a telephone counseling intervention on transitions in stage of change and adherence to interval mammography screening (United states) [J].
Carney, PA ;
Harwood, BG ;
Greene, MA ;
Goodrich, ME .
CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL, 2005, 16 (07) :799-807
[16]   Repeat mammography: Prevalence estimates and considerations for assessment [J].
Clark, MA ;
Rakowski, W ;
Bonacore, LB .
ANNALS OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, 2003, 26 (03) :201-211
[17]   The effect of a stage-matched and tailored intervention on repeat mammography [J].
Clark, MA ;
Rakowski, W ;
Ehrich, B ;
Rimer, BK ;
Velicer, WF ;
Dube, CE ;
Pearlman, DN ;
Peterson, KK ;
Goldstein, M .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2002, 22 (01) :1-7
[18]   Promoting mammography - Results of a randomized trial of telephone counseling and a medical practice intervention [J].
Costanza, ME ;
Stoddard, AM ;
Luckmann, R ;
White, MJ ;
Avrunin, JS ;
Clemow, L .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2000, 19 (01) :39-46
[19]   Impact of Mailed and Automated Telephone Reminders on Receipt of Repeat Mammograms A Randomized Controlled Trial [J].
DeFrank, Jessica T. ;
Rimer, Barbara K. ;
Gierisch, Jennifer M. ;
Bowling, J. Michael ;
Farrell, David ;
Skinner, Celette S. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2009, 36 (06) :459-467
[20]   Promoting regular mammography screening I. A systematic assessment of validity in a randomized trial [J].
del Junco, Deborah J. ;
Vernon, Sally W. ;
Coan, Sharon P. ;
Tiro, Jasmin A. ;
Bastian, Lori A. ;
Savas, Lara S. ;
Perz, Catherine A. ;
Lairson, David R. ;
Chan, Wen ;
Warrick, Cynthia ;
McQueen, Amy ;
Rakowski, William .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2008, 100 (05) :333-346