1997
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.1997.00440360064006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Abstract: We recommend the use of patient reminder letters as a first step in a mammography or Pap smear screening outreach program. Further research is needed to evaluate a cost-effective provider reminder system and additional outreach strategies directed to women who do not use health care services.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
23
0
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%
“…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%
“…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%
“…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%