The Effect of Patient and Provider Reminders on Mammography and Papanicolaou Smear Screening in a Large Health Maintenance Organization

Somkin, Carol P.; Hiatt, Robert A.; Hurley, Leo B.; Gruskin, Elisabeth P.; Ackerson, Lynn; Larson, Pamela

doi:10.1001/archinte.1997.00440360064006

Cited by 49 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For mammography, the same considerations were valid: two modest-sized studies (Saywell et al, 1999;Vogt et al, 2003) that were heterogeneous resulted significantly in favor of the intervention; the pooled estimate of the effect was a relative risk of 3.22 (95% CI 1.24-8.41). Barr et al, 2001;Bodiya et al, 1999;Bowman et al, 1995;Buehler and Parsons, 1997;Burack and Gimotty, 1997;Burack et al, 1998;Chambers et al, 1989;Crane et al, 1998;Hackett, 1996;Irwig et al, 1990;Lancaster and Elton, 1992;Landis et al, 1992;Mayer et al, 1994;Mitchell et al, 1991;Page et al, 2006;Pierce et al, 1989;Simon et al, 2001;Somkin et al, 1997;Stein et al, 2005;Turnbull et al, 1991. For mammography, Burack et al (1994) compared an intervention which combined the invitation letter and a GP reminder vs an intervention about removing economic and cultural barriers for users and operators, respectively, and found a positive effect for the invitation letter (53% vs 41% p b 0.001).…”

Section: Invitation Letters Vs No Intervention (Usual Care)mentioning

confidence: 99%

How to increase uptake in oncologic screening: A systematic review of studies comparing population-based screening programs and spontaneous access

Ferroni¹,

Camilloni²,

Jimenez³

et al. 2012

Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Invitation Letters Vs No Intervention (Usual Care)mentioning

confidence: 99%

How to increase uptake in oncologic screening: A systematic review of studies comparing population-based screening programs and spontaneous access

Ferroni¹,

Camilloni²,

Jimenez³

et al. 2012

Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Fourteen studies (11 RCTs, two quasi-RCTs and one controlled trial) evaluated giving or offering appointments for screening versus a control group, or another appointment strategy. 71,103,115,[145][146][147]158,[164][165][166][167][168][169][170] Four studies were undertaken in the USA, six were undertaken in the UK, one was undertaken in Italy and four were undertaken in Australia. Overall, fixed appointments appeared to be more effective than either control or open appointments (Figure 2).…”

Section: Appointmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…physician reminders and individual invitation). 60,61,65,80,150,160,165,272,[282][283][284][285][286] All the studies were undertaken in the USA. Several of these studies also evaluated the interventions separately (e.g.…”

Section: Interventions Aimed At Both Physicians and Individualsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review.

Jepson¹,

Clegg²,

Forbes³

et al. 2000

Health Technology Assessment

233

282

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources. The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA). This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care. It was identified as a priority by the Population Screening Panel and funded as project number 95/14/01. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein. In particular, policy options in the area of screening will be considered by the National Screening Committee. This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations. Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.

show abstract

“…Plans play an important role in improving screening through benefit design, practice guideline development and dissemination, provider contracting and payment policies, and member education and outreach. Much of the cancer control research conducted in health plans has been done in staff and group model HMOs because of their captive patient and provider populations and the relative ease of access to administrative and medical records data 44, 169–173. The majority of Americans, however, are covered by other types of insurance, particularly indemnity plans, some of which have managed care components.…”

Section: Priorities For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions for patients, providers, and health care organizations

Zapka

Lemon

2004

Cancer

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinicians and the organizations within which they practice play a major role in enabling patient participation in cancer screening and ensuring quality services.Guided by an ecologic framework, the authors summarize previous literature reviews and exemplary studies of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening intervention studies conducted in health care settings. Lessons learned regarding interventions to maximize the potential of cancer screening are distilled. Four broad lessons learned emphasize that multiple levels of factors-public policy, organizational systems and practice settings, clinicians, and patients-influence cancer screening; that a diverse set of intervention strategies targeted at each of these levels can improve cancer screening rates; that the synergistic effects of multiple strategies often are most effective; and that targeting all components of the screening continuum is important. Recommendations are made for future research and practice, including priorities for intervention research specific to health care settings, the need to take research phases into consideration, the need for studies of health services delivery trends, and methods and measurement A growing body of behavioral and health services research has developed and tested the efficacy and effectiveness of strategies within health care settings to improve cancer screening rates. This article summarizes lessons learned from interventions based in health care settings to improve screening for breast cancer (mammography), cervical cancer (Papanicolaou [Pap] tests), and colorectal cancer (CRC) (with fecal occult blood test [FOBT], sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy). Conceptual FrameworkAn ecologic framework, 1-3 as depicted in Figure 1, guides the conceptual model of this report. This model highlights ways that factors at the public policy level, the community level, and the organization and practice setting levels interact in a synergistic manner to hinder or enhance providers' delivery and patients' utilization of prevention services. This multisectorial, multilevel approach-congruent with the Behavioral Model of Utilization, 4 the Quality in the Continuum of Cancer Care (QCCC) model, 5 and the Chronic Care Model 6 -illustrates the need to recognize and understand the complexity of the context in which processes of care occur. Figure 2 describes organizational strategies that affect clinician behavior and patient screening participation, which are the focus of numerous studies reported in this article. 1165

show abstract

The Effect of Patient and Provider Reminders on Mammography and Papanicolaou Smear Screening in a Large Health Maintenance Organization

Cited by 49 publications

References 23 publications

How to increase uptake in oncologic screening: A systematic review of studies comparing population-based screening programs and spontaneous access

How to increase uptake in oncologic screening: A systematic review of studies comparing population-based screening programs and spontaneous access

The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review.

Interventions for patients, providers, and health care organizations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About