Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2001;2001(1):CD002943.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002943.

Strategies for increasing women participation in community breast cancer screening

X Bonfill  1 , M Marzo, M Pladevall, J Martí, J I Emparanza
Affiliations

Strategies for increasing women participation in community breast cancer screening

X Bonfill et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001.

Abstract

Background: Strategies for reducing breast cancer mortality in western countries have focused on screening, at least for women aged 50 to 69 years. One of the requirements of any community screening program is to achieve a high participation rate, which is related to methods of invitation. Therefore, it was decided to systematically review the scientific evidence on the different strategies aimed at improving women's participation in breast cancer screening programs and activities.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of different strategies for increasing the participation rate of women invited to community (population-based) breast cancer screening activities or mammography programs.

Search strategy: MEDLINE (1966-2000), CENTRAL (2000), and EMBASE (1998-1999) searches for 1966 to 1999 were supplemented by reports and letters to the European Screening Breast Cancer Programs (Euref Network).

Selection criteria: Both published and unpublished trials were eligible for inclusion, provided the women had been invited to a community breast screening activity or program and had been randomised to an intervention group or a control group with no active intervention.

Data collection and analysis: We identified 151 articles, which were reviewed independently by two people. The discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer in order to reach consensus. Thirty-four studies were excluded because they lacked a control group; 58 of the other 117 articles were considered as opportunistic and not community-based; 59 articles, which reported 70 community-based randomised controlled trials or clinical controlled trials, were accepted. In 24 of these, the control group had not been exposed to any active intervention, but 8 of the 24 had to be excluded because the denominator for estimating attendance was unknown. At the end, 16 studies constituted the material for this review, although two studies were further excluded because their groups were not comparable at baseline. Data from all but one study were based on or converted to an intention-to-treat analysis. Attendance in response to the mammogram invitation was the main outcome measure.

Main results: The evidence favoured five active strategies for inviting women into community breast cancer screening services: letter of invitation (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.92), mailed educational material (OR 2.81, 95% CI 1.96 to 4.02), letter of invitation plus phone call (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.18), phone call (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.23), and training activities plus direct reminders for the women (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.50). Home visits did not prove to be effective (OR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.80 to 1.40) and letters of invitation to multiple examinations plus educational material favoured the control group (OR 0.62, 95 % CI 0.32 to 1.20).

Reviewer's conclusions: Most active recruitment strategies for breast cancer screening programs examined in this review were more effective than no intervention. Combinations of effective interventions can have an important effect. Some costly strategies, as a home visit and a letter of invitation to multiple screening examinations plus educational material, were not effective. Further reviews comparing the effective interventions and studies that include cost-effectiveness, women's satisfaction and equity issues are needed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None known

Figures

1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Letters of invitation compared with control, Outcome 1 Attendance to the mammogram invitation during the following 12 months.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Letters of invitation compared with control, Outcome 2 Attendance to the mammogram invitation during the following 24 months.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Letters of invitation to multiple examinations plus educational materials compared with control, Outcome 1 Attendance to the mammogram invitation during the following 12 months.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Mailed educational material compared with control, Outcome 1 Attendance to the mammogram invitation during the following 12 months.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Letters of invitation plus phone call compared with control, Outcome 1 Attendance to the mammogram invitation during the following 12 months.
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 Phone calls of invitation compared with control, Outcome 1 Attendance to the mammogram invitation during the following 12 months.
6.1
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6 Training activities plus women reminders compared with control, Outcome 1 Attendance to the mammogram invitation during the following 12 months.
7.1
7.1. Analysis
Comparison 7 Home visits compared with control, Outcome 1 Attendance to the mammogram invitation during the following 12 months.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Atri 1997 {published data only}
    1. Atri J, Falshaw M, Gregg R, Robson J, Omar RZ, Dixon S. Improving uptake of breast screening in multiethnic populations: a randomised controlled trial using practice reception staff to contact non‐attenders. BMJ 1997;315(7119):1356‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Bodiya 1999 {published data only}
    1. Bodiya A, Vorias D, Dickson HA. Does telephone contact with a physician's office staff improve mammogram screening rates?. Family Medicine 1999;31:324‐6. - PubMed
Clementz 1990 {published data only}
    1. Clementz GL, Aldag JC, Gladfelter TT, Barclay AM, Brooks HF. A randomized study of cancer screening in a family practice setting using a recall model. J Fam Pract 1990;30(5):537‐41. [102] - PubMed
Davis 1997 (1) {published data only}
    1. Davis NA, Lewis MJ, Rimer BK, Harvey CM, Koplan JP. Evaluation of a Phone Intervention To Promote Mammography in a Managed Care Plan. Am J Health Promot 1997;114:247‐249. [56] - PubMed
Hoare 1994 {published data only}
    1. Hoare T, Thomas C, Biggs A, Booth M, Bradley S, Friedman E. Can the uptake of breast screening by Asian women be increased? A randomized controlled trial of a linkworker intervention. J Public Health Med 1994;16:179‐85. [108J‐Public‐Health‐Med] - PubMed
Irwig 1990 {published data only}
    1. Irwig L, Turnbull D, McMurchie M. A randomised trial of general practitioner‐written invitations to encourage attendance at screening mammography. CommunityHealth Stud 1990;14:357‐64. [33] - PubMed
Janz 1997 {published data only}
    1. Janz NK, Schottenfeld D, Doerr KM, Selig SM, Dunn RL, Strawderman M, Levine PA. A two‐step intervention of increase mammography among women aged 65 and older. Am J Public Health 1997;87:1683‐6. [57] - PMC - PubMed
Lantz 1995 {published data only}
    1. Lantz PM, Stencil D, Lippert MT, Beversdorf S, Jaros L, Remington PL. Breast and cervical cancer screening in a low‐income managed care sample: The efficacy of physician letters and phone calls. Am J Public Health 1995;85:834‐836. [18] - PMC - PubMed
Lerman 1992 {published data only}
    1. Lerman C, Ross E, Boyce A, Gorchov PM, McLaughlin R, Rimer B, Engstrom P. The impact of mailing psychoeducational materials to women with abnormal mammograms. Am J Public Health 1992;82(5):729‐30. - PMC - PubMed
Mohler 1995 {published data only}
    1. Mohler PJ. Enhancing compliance with screening mammography recommendations: a clinical trial in a primary care office. Fam Med 1995;27:117‐21. [34] - PubMed
Somkin 1997 {published data only}
    1. Somkin CP, Hiatt RA, Hurley LB, Gruskin E, Ackerson L, Larson P. The effect of patient and provider reminders on mammography and Papanicolaou smear screening in a large health maintenance organization. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:1658‐64. [61] - PubMed
Sung 1992 {published data only}
    1. Sung JFC, Coates RJ, Williams JE, Liff JM, Greenberg RS, McGrady GA, Avery BY, Blumenthal DS. Cancer screening intervention among black women in inner‐city Atlanta ‐ Design of a study. Public Health Rep 1992;107:381‐388. [26] - PMC - PubMed
Sutton 1994 {published data only}
    1. Sutton S, Bickler G, Sancho Aldridge J, Saidi G. Prospective study of predictors of attendance for breast screening in inner London. J Epidemiol Community Health 1994;48(1):65‐73. [27] - PMC - PubMed
Turnbull 1991 {published data only}
    1. Turnbull D, Irwig L, Adelson P. A randomised trial of invitations to attend for screening mammograph. Aust J Public Health 1991;15:33‐6. [32] - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Banks 1995 {published data only}
    1. Banks SM, Salovey P, Greener S, Rothman AJ, Moyer A, Beauvais J, Epel E. The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychol 1995;14:178‐84. - PubMed
Banks 1998 {published data only}
    1. Banks E, Richardson A, Beral V, Crossley B, Simmonds M, Hilton E, English R, Davis J, Austoker J. Effect on attendance at breast cancer screening of adding a self administered questionnaire to the usual invitation to breast screening in southern England. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998; Vol. 52:116‐9. [3a] - PMC - PubMed
Bastani 1994 {published data only}
    1. Bastani R, Marcus AC, Maxwell AE, Das IP, Yan KX. Evaluation of an intervention to increase mammography screening in Los Angeles. Prev Med 1994;23:83‐90. [4] - PubMed
Becker 1989 {published data only}
    1. Becker DM, Gomez EB, Kaiser DL, Yoshihasi A, Hodge RH. Improving preventive care at a medical clinic: how can the patient help?. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 1989;5(6):353‐9. - PubMed
Burack 1994 {published data only}
    1. Burack RC, Gimotty PA, George J, Stengle W, Warbasse L, Moncrease A. Promoting screening mammography in inner‐city settings: a randomized controlled trial of computerized reminders as a component of a program to facilitate mammography. Med Care 1994;32(6):609‐24. [7] - PubMed
Burack 1996 (1) {published data only}
    1. Burack RC, Gimotty PA, George J, Simon MS, Dews P, Moncrease A. The effect of patient and physician reminders on use of screening mammography in a health maintenance organization. Results of a randomized controlled trial. Cancer 1996;78:1708‐21. [6] - PubMed
Calle 1994 {published data only}
    1. Calle EE, Miracle McMahill HL, Moss RE, Heath CW. Personal contact from friends to increase mammography usage. Am J Prev Med 1994;10:361‐6. [54] - PubMed
Champion 1994 {published data only}
    1. Champion VL. Strategies to increase mammography utilization. Med Care 1994;32:118‐29. [10] - PubMed
Champion 1995 (1) {published data only}
    1. Champion V, Huster G. Effect of interventions on stage of mammography adoption. J Behav Med 1995;18:169‐87. [9] - PubMed
Clover 1992 {unpublished data only}
    1. Clover K, Redman S, Boyle K, Forbes J, Sanson‐Fisher R. Community‐based promotion of a mobile mammography screening service. Br J Cancer 1990;62(Suppl XII):40.
Clover 1996 (A) {published data only}
    1. Clover K, Redman S, Forbes J, Sanson‐Fisher R, Callaghan T. Two sequential randomized trials of community participation to recruit women for mammographic screening. Prev Med 1996;25:126‐34. [11a] - PubMed
Clover 1996 (B) {published data only}
    1. Clover K, Redman S, Forbes J, Sanson‐Fisher R, Callaghan T. Two sequential randomized trials of community participation to recruit women for mammographic screening. Prev Med 1996;25:126‐34. [11b] - PubMed
Crane 1998 {published data only}
    1. Crane LA, Leakey TA, Rimer BK, Wolfe P, Woodworth MA, Warnecke RB. Effectiveness of a telephone outcall intervention to promote screening mammography among low‐income women. Prev Med 1998;27:S39‐49. [12] - PubMed
Curry 1993 {published data only}
    1. Curry SJ, Taplin SH, Anderman C, Barlow WE, McBride C. A randomized trial of the impact of risk assessment and feedback on participation in mammography screening. Prev Med 1993;22:350‐60. [13] - PubMed
Dalessandri 1988 {published data only}
    1. Dalessandri KM, Cooper M, Rucker T. Effect of mammography outreach in women veterans. West J Med 1998;169:150‐2. [79] - PMC - PubMed
Davis 1997 (2) {published data only}
    1. Davis NA, Nash E, Bailey C, Lewis MJ, Rimer BK, Koplan JP. Evaluation of three methods for improving mammography rates in a managed care plan. Am J Prev Med 1997;13:298‐302. [52] - PubMed
Dolan 1999 {published data only}
    1. Dolan NC, McDermott MM, Morrow M, Venta L, Martin GJ. Impact of same‐day screening mammography availability: results of a controlled clinical trial. Arch Intern Med 1999;159(4):393‐8. [64] - PubMed
Giorgi 1999 {unpublished data only}
    1. Giorgi D, Livia G, Senore C, Merlino G, Negri R, Cancian M, Lerda M, Segan N, Rosselli M. General practitioners and mammographic screening uptake: influence of different modalities of general practitioner participation. Tumori (submitted) 2000;86(2):124‐9. - PubMed
Kiefe 1994 {published data only}
    1. Kiefe CI, McKay SV, Halevy A, Brody BA. Is cost a barrier to screening mammography for low‐income women receiving Medicare benefits? A randomized trial. Arch Intern Med 1994;154:1217‐24. [63] - PubMed
King 1994 {published data only}
    1. King ES, Rimer BK, Seay J, Balshem A, Engstrom PF. Promoting mammography use through progressive interventions: is it effective?. Am J Public Health 1994;84:104‐6. [17a] - PMC - PubMed
King 1995 {published data only}
    1. King ES, Ross E, Seay J, Balshem A, Rimer B. Mammography interventions for 65‐ to 74‐year‐old HMO women: Program effectiveness and predictors of use. Journal of Aging & Health 1995;7:529‐51. - PubMed
King 1998 {published data only}
    1. King E, Rimer BK, Benincasa T, Harrop C, Amfoh K, Bonney G, Kornguth P, Demark‐Wahnefried W, Strigo T, Engstrom P. Strategies to encourage mammography use among women in senior citizens' housing facilities. J Cancer Educ 1998;13:108‐15. [35] - PubMed
Lancaster 1992 {published data only}
    1. Lancaster G, Elton P. Does the offer of cervical screening with breast screening encourage older women to have a cervical smear test?. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1992;46:523‐527. [71] - PMC - PubMed
Landis 1992 {published data only}
    1. Landis SE, Hulkower SD, Pierson S. Enhancing adherence with mammography through patient letters and physician prompts. A pilot study. North Carolina Medical Journal 1992;53:575‐8. - PubMed
Manfredi 1998 {published data only}
    1. Manfredi C, Czaja R, Freels S, Trubitt M, Warnecke R, Lacey L. Prescribe for health. Improving cancer screening in physician practices serving low‐income and minority populations. Archives of Family Medicine 1998;7(4):329‐37. - PubMed
Mayer 1994 {published data only}
    1. Mayer JA, Clapp EJ, Bartholomew S, Elder, J. Facility‐based inreach strategies to promote annual mammograms. Am J Prev Med 1994;10:353‐6. [53a] - PubMed
Meldrum 1994 {published data only}
    1. Meldrum P, Turnbull D, Dobson HM, Colquhoun C, Gilmour WH, McIlwaine GM. Tailored written invitations for second round breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial. J Med Screen 1994;1:245‐8. [42] - PubMed
O'Connor 1998 {published data only}
    1. O'Connor AM, Griffiths CJ, Underwood MR, Eldridge S. Can postal prompts from general practitioners improve the uptake of breast screening? A randomised controlled trial in one east London general practice. J Med Screen 1998;5:49‐52. [41] - PubMed
Ore 1997 {published data only}
    1. Ore L, Hagoel L, Shifroni G, Rennert G. Compliance with mammography screening in Israeli women: the impact of a pre‐scheduled appointment and of the letter‐style. Isr J Med Sci 1997;33:103‐11. - PubMed
Ornstein 1991 {published data only}
    1. Ornstein SM, Garr DR, Jenkins RG, Rust PF, Arnon A. Computer‐generated physician and patient reminders. Tools to improve population adherence to selected preventive services. J Fam Pract 1991;32(1):82‐90. [22] - PubMed
Peeters 1994 {published data only}
    1. Peeters PH, Beckers CG, Hogervorst JM, Collette HJ. Effect on breast cancer screening response in The Netherlands of inviting women for an additional scientific investigation. J Epidemiol Community Health 1994;48(2):175‐7. [21] - PMC - PubMed
Rakowski 1998 {published data only}
    1. Rakowski W, Ehrich B, Goldstein MG, Rimer BK, Pearlman DN, Clark MA, Velicer WF, Woolverton H. Increasing mammography among women aged 40‐74 by use of a stage‐matched, tailored intervention. Prev Med 1998;27(5):748‐56. [59] - PubMed
Richardson 1994 {published data only}
    1. Richardson A, Williams S, Elwood M, Bahr M, Medlicott T. Participation in breast cancer screening: randomised controlled trials of doctors' letters and of telephone reminders. Aust J Public Health 1994;18:290‐2. [23a] - PubMed
Rimer 1992 {published data only}
    1. Rimer BK, Resch N, King E, Ross E, Lerman C, Boyce A, Kessler H, Engstrom PF. Multistrategy health education program to increase mammography use among women ages 65 and older. Public Health Rep 1992;107:369‐80. [58] - PMC - PubMed
Saigi 1995 {unpublished data only}
    1. Saigi E, Bonfill X, Florensa R, Nogué M, Seguí MA, et al. Randomised clinical trial for comparing different invitation methods in breast cancer screening [Ensayo clínico aleatorio para comparar diferentes métodos de convocatoria en el cribaje del cáncer de mama]. Personal communication. [66]
Schapira 1992 {published data only}
    1. Schapira DV, Kumar NB, Clark RA, Yag C. Mammography screening credit card and compliance. Cancer 1992;70(2):509‐12. - PubMed
Segnan 1998 {published data only}
    1. Segnan N, Senore C, Giordano L, Ponti A, Ronco G. Promoting participation in a population screening program for breast and cervical cancer: A randomized trial of different invitation strategies. Tumori 1998;84:348‐353. [36] - PubMed
Sharp 1996 {published data only}
    1. Sharp DJ, Peters TJ, Bartholomew J, Shaw A. Breast screening: a randomised controlled trial in UK general practice of three interventions designed to increase uptake. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996;50:72‐6. [25] - PMC - PubMed
Skinner 1994 {published data only}
    1. Skinner CS, Strecher VJ, Hospers H. Physicians' recommendations for mammography: do tailored messages make a difference?. Am J Public Health 1994;84:43‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Stead 1998 {published data only}
    1. Stead MJ, Wallis MG, Wheaton ME. Improving uptake in non‐attenders of breast screening: selective use of second appointment. J Med Screen 1998;5:69‐72. [95] - PubMed
Stoner 1998 {published data only}
    1. Stoner TJ, Dowd B, Carr WP, Maldonado G, Church TR, Mandel J. Do vouchers improve breast cancer screening rates? Results from a randomized trial. Health Serv Res 1998;33:11‐28. - PMC - PubMed
Taplin 1994 {published data only}
    1. Taplin SH, Anderman C, Grothaus L, Curry S, Montano D. Using physician correspondence and postcard reminders to promote mammography use. American Journal of Public Health 1994;84(4):571‐4. - PMC - PubMed
Turnbull 1992 {published data only}
    1. Turnbull D, Irwig L. Ineffective recruitment strategies for screening mammography: Letterbox drops and invitations for friends. Aust J Public Health 1992;16:79‐81. [101] - PubMed
Turner 1994 {published data only}
    1. Turner KM, Wilson BJ, Gilbert FJ. Improving breast screening uptake: persuading initial non‐attenders to attend. J Med Screen 1994;1:199‐202. [29] - PubMed
Weber 1997 {published data only}
    1. Weber BE, Reilly BM. Enhancing mammography use in the inner city. A randomized trial of intensive case management. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:2345‐9. [85] - PubMed
Williams 1989 {published data only}
    1. Williams EM, Vessey MP. Randomised trial of two strategies offering women mobile screening for breast cancer. BMJ 1989;299:158‐9. [30] - PMC - PubMed

Additional references

Battista 1999
    1. Battista RN, Lawrence RS, eds. Implementing preventive services. Am J Pre Med 1998;4:1‐194..
Begg 1996
    1. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting randomized clinical trials: the CONSORT Statement. JAMA 1996;276:637‐639. - PubMed
Gotzsche 2000
    1. Gotzsche P, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable?. Lancet 2000;355:129‐34. - PubMed
Mandelblatt 1999
    1. Mandelblatt JS, Yabroff KR. Effectiveness of interventions designed to increase mammography use: a meta‐analysis of provider‐targeted strategies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8(9):759‐67. - PubMed
Miller 2000
    1. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study‐2: 13‐Year Results of a Randomized Trial in Women Aged 50‐68 Years. Journal of the National Cancer Insititute 2000;92(18):1490‐1499. - PubMed
Parkin 1997
    1. Parkin DM, Whelan SL, Ferlay J, Raymond L, Young J. Cancer incidence in five continents Vol. VII. Registry data and estimates of national incidence for 1990.. ARC Scientific Publication no. 143. Lyon: IARC, 1997;143(i‐xxxiv):1‐1240.
Snell 1996
    1. Snell JL, Buck EL. Increasing cancer screening: a meta‐analysis.. Prev Med 1996;25(6):702‐7. - PubMed
Wagner 1998
    1. Wagner TH. The effectiveness of mailed patient reminders on mammography screening: a meta‐analysis. Am J Prev Med 1998;14(1):64‐70. - PubMed
Yabroff 1999
    1. Yabroff KR, Mandelblatt JS. Interventions targeted toward patients to increase mammography use. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8(9):749‐57. - PubMed

Publication types