This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplementary Data Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Legler, J. Articles by Rimer, B. K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Legler, J. Articles by Rimer, B. K.

The Effectiveness of Interventions To Promote Mammography among Women with Historically Lower Rates of Screening

Mathematical Statistician, Statistical Research and Applications Branch, Surveillance Research Program [J. L.], Applied Cancer Screening Research Branch, Behavioral Research Program [H. I. M.], Applied Research Program [N. B.], Applied Cancer Screening Research Branch, Behavioral Research Program [V. C.], and Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences [B. K. R.], National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, and Department of Community Medicine, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505 [C. C.]

This study examines mammography-enhancing intervention studies that focus on women in groups with historically lower rates of mammography use than the general population. These groups consist of women who are disproportionately older, poorer, of racial-ethnic minorities, have lower levels of formal education, and live in rural areas. We refer to them as diverse populations. The purpose of this report is to determine which types of mammography-enhancing interventions are most effective for these diverse populations. For this report, United States and international studies with concurrent controls that reported actual receipt of mammograms (usually based on self-report) as an outcome were eligible for inclusion. Intervention effects were measured by differences in intervention and control group screening rates postintervention and were weighted to reflect the certainty of each study’s contribution. These effects differed significantly (Q = 218, 34 df), and the variation between studies was best explained by indicators of the use of access-enhancing approaches. Combined intervention effects were estimated for different categories of intervention types using random effects models for subgroups of studies. The strongest combination of approaches used access-enhancing and individual-directed strategies and resulted in an estimated 27% increase in mammography use (95% confidence interval, 9.9–43.9, nine studies). Additionally impressive was the access-enhancing and system-directed combination (20% increase and 95% confidence interval, 8.2–30.6, five studies). Access-enhancing strategies are an important complement to individual- and system-directed interventions for women with historically lower rates of screening.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. H. Lende and A. Lachiondo Embodiment and Breast Cancer Among African American Women Qual Health Res, February 1, 2009; 19(2): 216 - 228. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Harper, J. Lynch, S. C. Meersman, N. Breen, W. W. Davis, and M. C. Reichman Trends in Area-Socioeconomic and Race-Ethnic Disparities in Breast Cancer Incidence, Stage at Diagnosis, Screening, Mortality, and Survival among Women Ages 50 Years and Over (1987-2005) Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2009; 18(1): 121 - 131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. A. Hiatt, R. J. Pasick, S. Stewart, J. Bloom, P. Davis, P. Gardiner, and J. Luce Cancer Screening for Underserved Women: The Breast and Cervical Cancer Intervention Study Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., August 1, 2008; 17(8): 1945 - 1949. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. C. English, J. Fairbanks, C. E. Finster, A. Rafelito, J. Luna, and M. Kennedy A Socioecological Approach to Improving Mammography Rates in a Tribal Community Health Educ Behav, June 1, 2008; 35(3): 396 - 409. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. W. Vernon, D. J. del Junco, J. A. Tiro, S. P. Coan, C. A. Perz, L. A. Bastian, W. Rakowski, W. Chan, D. R. Lairson, A. McQueen, et al. Promoting Regular Mammography Screening II. Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial in US Women Veterans J Natl Cancer Inst, March 5, 2008; 100(5): 347 - 358. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. I. Mishra, R. Bastani, C. M. Crespi, L. C. Chang, P. H. Luce, and C. R. Baquet Results of a Randomized Trial to Increase Mammogram Usage among Samoan Women Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2007; 16(12): 2594 - 2604. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Sarfaty and R. Wender How to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in Practice CA Cancer J Clin, November 1, 2007; 57(6): 354 - 366. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. L. Beach, A. B. Flood, C. M. Robinson, A. N. Cassells, J. N. Tobin, M. A. Greene, and A. J. Dietrich Can Language-Concordant Prevention Care Managers Improve Cancer Screening Rates? Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., October 1, 2007; 16(10): 2058 - 2064. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. M. Masi, D. J. Blackman, and M. E. Peek Interventions to Enhance Breast Cancer Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment among Racial and Ethnic Minority Women Med Care Res Rev, October 1, 2007; 64(5_suppl): 195S - 242S. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Otero-Sabogal, S. Stewart, S. J. Shema, and R. J. Pasick Ethnic Differences in Decisional Balance and Stages of Mammography Adoption Health Educ Behav, April 1, 2007; 34(2): 278 - 296. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. L. Tolma, B. M. Reininger, A. Evans, and J. Ureda Examining the theory of planned behavior and the construct of self-efficacy to predict mammography intention. Health Educ Behav, April 1, 2006; 33(2): 233 - 251. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. S. Gorin, A. R. Ashford, R. Lantigua, A. Hossain, M. Desai, A. Troxel, and D. Gemson Effectiveness of Academic Detailing on Breast Cancer Screening among Primary Care Physicians in an Underserved Community J Am Board Fam Med, March 1, 2006; 19(2): 110 - 121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Kobetz, K. Vatalaro, A. Moore, and J. A. Earp Taking the Transtheoretical Model Into the Field: A Curriculum for Lay Health Advisors Health Promot Pract, July 1, 2005; 6(3): 329 - 337. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. S. Gorin and J. E. Heck Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Tobacco Counseling by Health Care Providers Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2004; 13(12): 2012 - 2022. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. L. Taylor, R. Shelby, E. Gelmann, and C. McGuire Quality of Life and Trial Adherence Among Participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial J Natl Cancer Inst, July 21, 2004; 96(14): 1083 - 1094. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. W. Vernon, H. Meissner, C. Klabunde, B. K. Rimer, D. J. Ahnen, R. Bastani, M. T. Mandelson, M. R. Nadel, S. Sheinfeld-Gorin, and J. Zapka Measures for Ascertaining Use of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Behavioral, Health Services, and Epidemiologic Research Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., June 1, 2004; 13(6): 898 - 905. [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. H. Rauscher, J. A. L. Earp, and M. O'Malley Relation Between Intervention Exposures, Changes in Attitudes, and Mammography Use in the North Carolina Breast Cancer Screening Program Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2004; 13(5): 741 - 747. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]