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
Meta-Analysis
. 2001 Aug;16(8):563-8.
doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016008567.x.

Efficacy of patient letter reminders on cervical cancer screening: a meta-analysis

D S Tseng  1 , E Cox, M B Plane, K M Hla
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Efficacy of patient letter reminders on cervical cancer screening: a meta-analysis

D S Tseng et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Aug.

Abstract

Objective: To perform a meta-analysis on existing randomized controlled trials to investigate the efficacy of patient letter reminders on increasing cervical cancer screening using Pap smears.

Methods: A search was conducted for all relevant published and unpublished studies between the years 1966 and 2000. Eligibility criteria included randomized controlled studies that examined populations due for Pap smear screening. The intervention studied was in the form of a reminder letter. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to measure the summary effect of the intervention. A test for homogeneity using the Mantel-Haenszel method was performed.

Results: Ten articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including one unpublished study. The test for homogeneity showed evidence of heterogeneity (chi2 = 31, 9 df, P <.001). An analysis for causes of heterogeneity was pursued. Division into subpopulations based on socioeconomic status resolved the heterogeneity (chi2 = 5.2, 8 df, P =.75). The studies evaluating those in lower socioeconomic groups had a smaller response (odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.35) than those studies using mixed populations (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.79 to 2.28). The pooled odds ratio showed that patients who received the intervention were significantly more likely to return for screening than those who did not (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.49 to 1.80).

Conclusions: Patient reminders in the form of mailed letters increase the rate of cervical cancer screening. Patient letter reminders have less efficacy in lower socioeconomic groups.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Odds of randomized controlled trials individually and combined.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services: Report of the US Preventive Services Task Force. Baltimore, Md: Williams and Wilkins; 1996.
    1. Trends in cancer screening—United States, 1987 and 1992. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1995;45:57–61. - PubMed
    1. Anderson L, May D. Has the use of cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening increased in the United States? Am J Public Health. 1995;85:840–2. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pirkis JE, Jolley D, Dunt DR. Recruitment of women by GPs for Pap tests: a meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 1998;48:1603–7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wagner TH. The effectiveness of mailed patient reminders on mammography screening: a meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14:64–70. - PubMed

Publication types