Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11279781›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001

Strategies for increasing women participation in community breast cancer screening.

X Bonfill, M Marzo, M Pladevall, J Martí, J I Emparanza

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

82 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Extending the Age Range in Mammography Screening: A Benefit-Risk Assessment from a Radiation Protection Perspective.RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. The Efficacy of Direct Mail, Patient Navigation, and Incentives for Increasing Mammography and Colonoscopy in the Medicaid Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2018
    Trial
  20. Trial

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

X BonfillCentro Cochrane Iberoamericano., Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Casa de Convalescència, Sant Antoni M. Claret 171, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, 08041. XBonfill@hsp.santpau.es
M Marzo
M Pladevall
J Martí
J I Emparanza

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStrategies for reducing breast cancer mortality in western countries have focused on screening, at least for women aged 50 to 69 years. One of the requirements of any community screening program is to achieve a high participation rate, which is related to methods of invitation. Therefore, it was decided to systematically review the scientific evidence on the different strategies aimed at improving women's participation in breast cancer screening programs and activities.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of different strategies for increasing the participation rate of women invited to community (population-based) breast cancer screening activities or mammography programs. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE (1966-2000), CENTRAL (2000), and EMBASE (1998-1999) searches for 1966 to 1999 were supplemented by reports and letters to the European Screening Breast Cancer Programs (Euref Network). SELECTION CRITERIA: Both published and unpublished trials were eligible for inclusion, provided the women had been invited to a community breast screening activity or program and had been randomised to an intervention group or a control group with no active intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified 151 articles, which were reviewed independently by two people. The discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer in order to reach consensus. Thirty-four studies were excluded because they lacked a control group; 58 of the other 117 articles were considered as opportunistic and not community-based; 59 articles, which reported 70 community-based randomised controlled trials or clinical controlled trials, were accepted. In 24 of these, the control group had not been exposed to any active intervention, but 8 of the 24 had to be excluded because the denominator for estimating attendance was unknown. At the end, 16 studies constituted the material for this review, although two studies were further excluded because their groups were not comparable at baseline. Data from all but one study were based on or converted to an intention-to-treat analysis. Attendance in response to the mammogram invitation was the main outcome measure. MAIN

resultsThe evidence favoured five active strategies for inviting women into community breast cancer screening services: letter of invitation (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.92), mailed educational material (OR 2.81, 95% CI 1.96 to 4.02), letter of invitation plus phone call (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.18), phone call (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.23), and training activities plus direct reminders for the women (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.50). Home visits did not prove to be effective (OR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.80 to 1.40) and letters of invitation to multiple examinations plus educational material favoured the control group (OR 0.62, 95 % CI 0.32 to 1.20). REVIEWER'S

conclusionsMost active recruitment strategies for breast cancer screening programs examined in this review were more effective than no intervention. Combinations of effective interventions can have an important effect. Some costly strategies, as a home visit and a letter of invitation to multiple screening examinations plus educational material, were not effective. Further reviews comparing the effective interventions and studies that include cost-effectiveness, women's satisfaction and equity issues are needed.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationPatient SelectionProgram EvaluationBreast NeoplasmsClinical Trials as TopicCommunity Health ServicesFemaleHumansMass Screening

Identifiers

PMID11279781
PMCPMC6457645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.