Promoting Participation in a Population Screening Program for Breast and Cervical Cancer: A Randomized Trial of Different Invitation Strategies

Aims and background Attendance level has been identified as a major determinant of cost-effectiveness of organized screening programs. We tested the effectiveness of 4 different invitation systems in the context of an organized population screening program for cervical and breast cancer. Methods Women eligible for invitation - 8385 for cervical and 8069 for breast cancer screening - listed in the rosters of 43 and 105 general practitioners (GP), respectively, who had accepted to collaborate in the program, were randomized to 4 invitation groups: Group A - letter signed by the GP, with a prefixed appointment; Group B - open-ended invitation, signed by the GP, prompting women to contact the screening center to arrange an appointment; Group C - letter (same as for group A), signed by the program coordinator, with a prefixed appointment; Group D - extended letter (highlighting the benefits of early cancer detection) signed by the GP, with a prefixed appointment. Assignment to the interventions was based on a randomized block design (block=GP). Results Assuming Group A as the reference, the overall compliance with cervical cancer screening was reduced by 39% in Group B (RR=0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.68) and by 14% in Group C (RR=0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93); no difference was observed for Group D (RR=1.03; 95% CI, 0.95-1.1). The response pattern was similar for breast screening (Group B: RR=0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.76; Group C: RR=0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94; Group D: RR=1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.08). Conclusions Personal invitation letters signed by the woman's GP, with preallocated appointments, induce a significant increase in compliance with screening. Efficiency can be ensured through the adoption of overbooking, provided that attendance levels are regularly monitored.

[1]  A. Ponti,et al.  Interaction of spontaneous and organised screening for cervical cancer in Turin, Italy. , 1997, European journal of cancer.

[2]  A. Ponti,et al.  Who does Pap-test? The effect of one call program on coverage and determinants of compliance. , 1994, Epidemiologia e prevenzione.

[3]  P. Schofield,et al.  Encouraging Attendance at a Screening Mammography Programme: Determinants of Response to Different Recruitment Strategies , 1994, Journal of medical screening.

[4]  F J Gilbert,et al.  Improving Breast Screening Uptake: Persuading Initial Non-Attenders to Attend , 1994, Journal of medical screening.

[5]  V. Champion Strategies to Increase Mammography Utilization , 1994, Medical care.

[6]  D. Torgerson,et al.  An economic view of high compliance as a screening objective , 1994, BMJ.

[7]  C. van Weel,et al.  Preliminary results of a general practice based call system for cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands. , 1993, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[8]  M. Romans Utilization of mammography. Social and behavioral trends , 1993, Cancer.

[9]  J Chamberlain,et al.  National Health Service breast screening programme results for 1991-2. , 1993, BMJ.

[10]  J. Cockburn,et al.  Effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of recruitment strategies for a mammographic screening program to detect breast cancer. , 1992, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[11]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Determinants of Non-Attendance to Mammographic Screening. Analysis of a Population Sample of the Screening Program in the District of Florence , 1992, Tumori.

[12]  S. Gillam Understanding the uptake of cervical cancer screening: the contribution of the health belief model. , 1991, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[13]  M. R. del Turco,et al.  What healthy women think, feel and do about cancer, prevention and breast cancer screening in Italy. , 1991, European journal of cancer.

[14]  A. Ponti,et al.  Who has Pap tests? Variables associated with the use of Pap tests in absence of screening programmes. , 1991, International journal of epidemiology.

[15]  D. Taylor,et al.  Patients' perspectives of a physician-delivered smoking cessation intervention. , 1991, American journal of preventive medicine.

[16]  L. Pasquale,et al.  Factors associated with non-participation of women in a breast cancer screening programme in a town in northern Italy. , 1991, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[17]  C. la Vecchia,et al.  Characteristics of Women Reporting Cervical Screening , 1990, Tumori.

[18]  G. Matanoski,et al.  Inner-city women at risk for cervical cancer: behavioral and utilization factors related to inadequate screening. , 1990, Preventive medicine.

[19]  A. Ponti,et al.  Practice of Early Diagnosis of Breast and Uterine Cervix Cancer in a Northern Italian Town , 1990, Tumori.

[20]  J D Habbema,et al.  Cervical‐cancer screening: Attendance and cost‐effectiveness , 1990, International journal of cancer.

[21]  S. Vernon,et al.  Participation in breast screening programs: a review. , 1990, Social science & medicine.

[22]  A. Stoddard,et al.  Breast cancer screening by mammography: utilization and associated factors. , 1989, American journal of public health.

[23]  N. Waugh,et al.  Evaluation of a call programme for cervical cytology screening in women aged 50-60. , 1989, BMJ.

[24]  J. King,et al.  Prospective randomised controlled trial of methods of call and recall for cervical cytology screening. , 1989, BMJ.

[25]  M. Vessey,et al.  Randomised trial of two strategies offering women mobile screening for breast cancer. , 1989, BMJ.

[26]  B. Rimer,et al.  Why women resist screening mammography: patient-related barriers. , 1989, Radiology.

[27]  N. Day,et al.  Breast cancer screening programmes: the development of a monitoring and evaluation system. , 1989, British Journal of Cancer.

[28]  C M Havelock,et al.  Preliminary results of a district call scheme for cervical screening organised in general practice. , 1988, BMJ.

[29]  D. Coleman,et al.  Cervical screening in an inner city area: response to a call system in general practice. , 1988, BMJ.

[30]  V. Nathoo Investigation of non-responders at a cervical cancer screening clinic in Manchester , 1988, British medical journal.

[31]  A. Wilson,et al.  Cervical cytology screening: a comparison of two call systems. , 1987, British medical journal.

[32]  S Wacholder,et al.  Binomial regression in GLIM: estimating risk ratios and risk differences. , 1986, American journal of epidemiology.

[33]  J. Hardcastle,et al.  CONTROLLED TRIAL OF FAECAL OCCULT BLOOD TESTING IN THE DETECTION OF COLORECTAL CANCER , 1983, The Lancet.

[34]  A. Porter,et al.  Attendance at a breast screening clinic: a problem of administration or attitudes. , 1982, British medical journal.