A prospective randomized study of two reminding strategies: Telephone versus mail in the screening of cervical cancer in women who did not initially respond

Acta Cytologica

Volumn 55, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 334-340

  Heranney, D ^a   Fender, M ^a   Velten, M ^b   Baldauf, J J ^c  

^a Association Eve   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE STRASBOURG   (France)

^c HÔPITAL DE HAUTEPIERRE   (France)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer screening; Mail, reminder; Telephone, reminder

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CANCER SCREENING; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; POSTAL MAIL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REMINDER SYSTEM; REVIEW; TELEPHONE; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PROGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR;

ADULT; AGED; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; POSTAL SERVICE; PROGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REMINDER SYSTEMS; TELEPHONE; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 80052890625     PISSN: 00015547     EISSN: 19382650     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000327527     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Tacken MA, Braspenning JC, Hermens RP, et al. Uptake of cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands is mainly influenced by women's beliefs about the screening and by the inviting organization. Eur J Public Health 2007; 17: 178-185.
2. Buehler SK, Parsons WL: Effectiveness of a call/recall system in improving compliance with cervical cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ 1997; 157: 521-526.
3. Johnston GM, Boyd CJ, MacIsaac MA, Rhodes JW, Grimshaw RN: Effectiveness of letters to Cape Breton women who have not had a recent Pap smear. Chronic Dis Can 2003; 24: 49-56.
4. Rousseau A, Bohet P, Merlière J, Treppoz H, Heules-Bernin B, Ancelle-Park R: Evaluation du dépistage organisé et du dépistage individual du cancer du col de l'utérus: utilité des données de l'Assurance maladie. Bull Epidemiol Hebdo 2002; 19: 81-83.
5. Fender M, Schott J, Baldauf JJ, Muller J, Schlund E, Dellenbach P: EVE: une champagne régionale de dépistage du cancer du col de l'utérus. Organisation, résultats à 7 ans et perspectives. Presse Méd 2003; 32: 1545-1551.
6. Aklimunnessa K, Mori M, Khan MM, et al. Effectiveness of cervical cancer screening over cervical cancer mortality among Japanese women. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2006; 36: 511-518.
7. Waxman AG: Guidelines for cervical cancer screening: history and scientific rationale. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2005; 48: 77-97.
8. Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, Allen E: Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ 1999; 318: 904-908.
9. Gustafsson L, Adami HO: Cytologic screening for cancer of the uterine cervix in Sweden evaluated by identification and simulation. Br J Cancer 1990; 61: 903-908.
10. Ponten J, Adami HO, Bergström R, et al. Strategies for global control of cervical cancer. Int J Cancer 1995; 60: 1-26.
11. Lynge E, Clausen LB, Guignard R, Poll P: What happens when organization of cervical cancer screening is delayed or stopped? J Med Screen 2006; 13: 41-46.
12. Nygard JF, Skare GB, Thoresen SO: The cervical cancer screening programme in Norway, 1992-2000: changes in Pap smear coverage and incidence of cervical cancer. J Med Screen 2002; 9: 86-91.
13. Bergström R, Sparen P, Adami HO: Trends in cancer of the cervix uteri in Sweden following cytological screening. Br J Cancer 1999; 81: 159-166.
14. Bos AB,Van Ballegooijen M,Van Gessel-Dabekaussen AA,Habbema JD. Organised cervical cancer screening still leads to higher coverage than spontaneous screening in The Netherlands Eur J Cancer 1998 34: 1598-1601.
15. Sigurdsson K: Effect of organized screening on the risk of cervical cancer. Evaluation of screening activity in Iceland, 1964-1991. Int J Cancer 1993; 54: 563-570.
16. Lynge E, Madsen M, Engholm G: Effect of organized screening on incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in Denmark. Cancer Res 1989; 49: 2157-2160.
17. Nieminen P, Kallio M, Anttila A, Hakama M: Organised vs spontaneous Pap smear screening for cervical cancer: a case-control study. Int J Cancer 1999; 83: 55-58.
18. Cahier des charges du dépistage organisé du cancer du col de l'utérus. Direction Générale de la Santé, Décembre 2006. www.sante. gouv.fr/htm/dossiers/cancer-uterus/cctp. pdf (accessed October 2, 2009).
19. Adami HO, Ponten J, Sparen P, Bergström R, Gustafsson L, Friberg LG: Survival trend after invasive cervical cancer diagnosis in Sweden before and after cytologic screening. 1960-1984. Cancer 1994; 73: 140-147.
20. Duport N, Haguenoer K, Ancelle-Park R, Bloch J: Evaluation épidémiologique des quatre départements 'pilotes'. Institut de Veille Sanitaire, June 2007. www.invs.sante. fr/publications (accessed October 2, 2009).
21. Tseng DS, Cox E, Plane MB, Hla KM: Efficacy of patient letter reminders on cervical screening: a meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16: 563-568.
22. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques: Enquêtes annuelles de recensement 2004 à 2006 - exploitation principale. www.insee.fr/fr/bases-dedonnees (accessed October 2, 2009).
23. Stein K, Lewendon G, Jenkins R, Davis C: Improving uptake of cervical cancer screening in women with prolonged history of non-attendance for screening: a randomized trial of enhanced invitation methods. J Med Screen 2005; 12: 185-189.
24. Oscarsson MG, Benzein EG, Wijma BE, Carlsson PG: Promotion of cervical screening among nonattendees: a partial cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur J Cancer Prev 2007; 16: 559-563.
25. Piana L, Leandri FX, Jacqueme B, et al. Le dépistage organisé des cancers du col utérin pour les femmes en situation médicosociale défavorisée. Campagnes expérimentales du département des Bouches-du-Rhône. Bull Cancer 2007; 94: 1-7.
26. Richardson A, Williams S, Elwood M, Bahr M, Medlicott T: Participation in breast cancer screening: randomised controlled trials of doctors' letters and of telephone reminders. Aust J Public Health 1994; 18: 290-292.
27. Page A,Morrell S,Chiu C,Taylor R,Tewson R. Recruitment to mammography screening: A randomised trial and meta-analysis of invitation letters and telephone calls Aust. NZ. J. Public Health.2006. 30. 111-118
28. Eaker S, Adami HO, Granath F, Wilander E, Sparen P: A large population based randomized controlled trial to increase attendance at screening for cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004; 13: 346-354.
29. Miller SM, Siejak KK, Schroeder CM, Lerman C, Hernandez E, Helm CW: Enhancing adherence following abnormal Pap smears among low-income minority women: a preventive telephone counseling strategy. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 89: 703-708.
30. Luckmann R, Savageau JA, Clemow L, Stoddard AM, Costanza ME: A randomized trial of telephone counseling to promote screening mammography in two HMOs. Cancer Detect Prev 2003; 27: 442-450.
31. Basch CE, Wolf RL, Brouse CH, et al. Telephone outreach to increase colorectal cancer screening in an urban minority population. Am J Public Health 2006; 96: 2246-2253.
32. Taplin SH, Barlow WE, Ludman E, et al. Testing reminder and motivational telephone calls to increase screening mammography: a randomized study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 233-242.
33. Vinker S,Nakar S,Rosenberg E,Kitai E. The role of family physicians in increasing annual fecal occult blood test screening coverage: A prospective intervention study Isr Med Assoc J 2002. 4:424-425
34. Davis NA, Nash E, Bailey C, Lewis MJ, Rimer BK, Koplan JP: Evaluation of three methods for improving mammography rates in a managed care plan. Am J Prev Med 1997; 13: 298-302.
35. Bais AG, van Kemenade FJ, Berkhof J, et al. Human papillomavirus testing on self-sampled cervicovaginal brushes: an effective alternative to protect nonresponders in cervical cancer screening programs. Int J Cancer 2007; 120: 1505-1510.