American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Volume 36, Issue 6 , Pages 459-467, June 2009

Impact of Mailed and Automated Telephone Reminders on Receipt of Repeat Mammograms:

A Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Jessica T. DeFrank, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
    • Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence and reprint requests to: Jessica T. DeFrank, MPH, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, Campus Box #7440, Chapel Hill NC 27599
  • ,
  • Barbara K. Rimer, DrPH

      Affiliations

    • Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
  • ,
  • Jennifer M. Gierisch, PhD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Department of General Internal Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
  • ,
  • J. Michael Bowling, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
    • Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
  • ,
  • David Farrell, MPH

      Affiliations

    • People Designs, Inc., Durham, North Carolina
  • ,
  • Celette S. Skinner, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas

published online 13 April 2009.

Background

This study compares the efficacy of three types of reminders in promoting annual repeat mammography screening.

Design

RCT.

Setting and participants

Study recruitment occurred in 2004–2005. Participants were recruited through the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees. All were aged 40–75 years and had a screening mammogram prior to study enrollment. A total of 3547 women completed baseline telephone interviews.

Intervention

Prior to study recruitment, women were assigned randomly to one of three reminder groups: (1) printed enhanced usual care reminders (EUCRs); (2) automated telephone reminders (ATRs) identical in content to EUCRs; or (3) enhanced letter reminders that included additional information guided by behavioral theory. Interventions were delivered 2–3 months prior to women's mammography due dates.

Main outcome measures

Repeat mammography adherence, defined as having a mammogram no sooner than 10 months and no later than 14 months after the enrollment mammogram.

Results

Each intervention produced adherence proportions that ranged from 72% to 76%. Post-intervention adherence rates increased by an absolute 17.8% from baseline. Women assigned to ATRs were significantly more likely to have had mammograms than women assigned to EUCRs (p=0.014). Comparisons of reminder efficacy did not vary across key subgroups.

Conclusions

Although all reminders were effective in promoting repeat mammography adherence, ATRs were the most effective and lowest in cost. Health organizations should consider using ATRs to maximize proportions of members who receive mammograms at annual intervals.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0749-3797(09)00146-9

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.032

American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Volume 36, Issue 6 , Pages 459-467, June 2009