Improving attendance for breast screening among recent non-attenders: a randomised controlled trial of two interventions in primary care.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two primary care based interventions aimed at increasing breast screening uptake for women who had recently failed to attend. SETTING: 13 General practices with low uptake in the second round of breast screening (below 60%) in north...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2001
|
| _version_ | 1797070652567453696 |
|---|---|
| author | Bankhead, C Richards, S Peters, T Sharp, D Hobbs, F Brown, J Roberts, L Tydeman, C Redman, V Formby, J Wilson, S Austoker, J |
| author_facet | Bankhead, C Richards, S Peters, T Sharp, D Hobbs, F Brown, J Roberts, L Tydeman, C Redman, V Formby, J Wilson, S Austoker, J |
| author_sort | Bankhead, C |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two primary care based interventions aimed at increasing breast screening uptake for women who had recently failed to attend. SETTING: 13 General practices with low uptake in the second round of breast screening (below 60%) in north west London and the West Midlands, United Kingdom. Participants were women in these practices who were recent non-attenders for breast screening in the third round. METHODS: Pragmatic factorial randomised controlled trial, with people randomised to a systematic intervention (general practitioner letter), an opportunistic intervention (flag in women's notes prompting discussion by health professionals), neither intervention, or both. Outcome measures were attendance for screening 6 months after randomisation and cost-effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS: 1,158 Women were individually randomised as follows: 289 control; 291 letter; 290 flag; 288 both interventions. Attendance was ascertained for 1,148 (99%) of the 1,158 women. Logistic regression adjusting for the other intervention and practice produced an odds ratio (OR) for attendance of 1.51 (95% confidence interval (95% CI 1.02 to 2.26; p=0.04) for the letter, and 1.39 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.10) for the flag. Health service costs/ additional attendance were 35 pounds (letter) and 65 pounds (flag). CONCLUSIONS: Among recent non-attenders, the letter was effective in increasing breast screening attendance. The flag was of equivocal effectiveness and was considerably less cost-effective than the letter. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T22:41:59Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:5be3073c-cbd8-4d2f-952a-054c5003b67c |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T22:41:59Z |
| publishDate | 2001 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:5be3073c-cbd8-4d2f-952a-054c5003b67c2022-03-26T17:24:45ZImproving attendance for breast screening among recent non-attenders: a randomised controlled trial of two interventions in primary care.Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:5be3073c-cbd8-4d2f-952a-054c5003b67cEnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2001Bankhead, CRichards, SPeters, TSharp, DHobbs, FBrown, JRoberts, LTydeman, CRedman, VFormby, JWilson, SAustoker, JOBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two primary care based interventions aimed at increasing breast screening uptake for women who had recently failed to attend. SETTING: 13 General practices with low uptake in the second round of breast screening (below 60%) in north west London and the West Midlands, United Kingdom. Participants were women in these practices who were recent non-attenders for breast screening in the third round. METHODS: Pragmatic factorial randomised controlled trial, with people randomised to a systematic intervention (general practitioner letter), an opportunistic intervention (flag in women's notes prompting discussion by health professionals), neither intervention, or both. Outcome measures were attendance for screening 6 months after randomisation and cost-effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS: 1,158 Women were individually randomised as follows: 289 control; 291 letter; 290 flag; 288 both interventions. Attendance was ascertained for 1,148 (99%) of the 1,158 women. Logistic regression adjusting for the other intervention and practice produced an odds ratio (OR) for attendance of 1.51 (95% confidence interval (95% CI 1.02 to 2.26; p=0.04) for the letter, and 1.39 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.10) for the flag. Health service costs/ additional attendance were 35 pounds (letter) and 65 pounds (flag). CONCLUSIONS: Among recent non-attenders, the letter was effective in increasing breast screening attendance. The flag was of equivocal effectiveness and was considerably less cost-effective than the letter. |
| spellingShingle | Bankhead, C Richards, S Peters, T Sharp, D Hobbs, F Brown, J Roberts, L Tydeman, C Redman, V Formby, J Wilson, S Austoker, J Improving attendance for breast screening among recent non-attenders: a randomised controlled trial of two interventions in primary care. |
| title | Improving attendance for breast screening among recent non-attenders: a randomised controlled trial of two interventions in primary care. |
| title_full | Improving attendance for breast screening among recent non-attenders: a randomised controlled trial of two interventions in primary care. |
| title_fullStr | Improving attendance for breast screening among recent non-attenders: a randomised controlled trial of two interventions in primary care. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Improving attendance for breast screening among recent non-attenders: a randomised controlled trial of two interventions in primary care. |
| title_short | Improving attendance for breast screening among recent non-attenders: a randomised controlled trial of two interventions in primary care. |
| title_sort | improving attendance for breast screening among recent non attenders a randomised controlled trial of two interventions in primary care |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT bankheadc improvingattendanceforbreastscreeningamongrecentnonattendersarandomisedcontrolledtrialoftwointerventionsinprimarycare AT richardss improvingattendanceforbreastscreeningamongrecentnonattendersarandomisedcontrolledtrialoftwointerventionsinprimarycare AT peterst improvingattendanceforbreastscreeningamongrecentnonattendersarandomisedcontrolledtrialoftwointerventionsinprimarycare AT sharpd improvingattendanceforbreastscreeningamongrecentnonattendersarandomisedcontrolledtrialoftwointerventionsinprimarycare AT hobbsf improvingattendanceforbreastscreeningamongrecentnonattendersarandomisedcontrolledtrialoftwointerventionsinprimarycare AT brownj improvingattendanceforbreastscreeningamongrecentnonattendersarandomisedcontrolledtrialoftwointerventionsinprimarycare AT robertsl improvingattendanceforbreastscreeningamongrecentnonattendersarandomisedcontrolledtrialoftwointerventionsinprimarycare AT tydemanc improvingattendanceforbreastscreeningamongrecentnonattendersarandomisedcontrolledtrialoftwointerventionsinprimarycare AT redmanv improvingattendanceforbreastscreeningamongrecentnonattendersarandomisedcontrolledtrialoftwointerventionsinprimarycare AT formbyj improvingattendanceforbreastscreeningamongrecentnonattendersarandomisedcontrolledtrialoftwointerventionsinprimarycare AT wilsons improvingattendanceforbreastscreeningamongrecentnonattendersarandomisedcontrolledtrialoftwointerventionsinprimarycare AT austokerj improvingattendanceforbreastscreeningamongrecentnonattendersarandomisedcontrolledtrialoftwointerventionsinprimarycare |