Trial reportEvaluation and program planning2011
Cost-effectiveness of targeted versus tailored interventions to promote mammography screening among women military veterans in the United States.
Trial report in Evaluation and program planning, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Economics of Multicomponent Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Colorectal cancer screening and physical activity promotion among obese women: an online evaluation of targeted messages.Journal of health communication · 2012Trial
- Review
- From Salt to Stroke-Evaluation of a Media Campaign for Sodium Reduction in Philadelphia.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
- Medicaid savings from the Contraceptive CHOICE Project: a cost-savings analysis.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2018Article
- An Evidence Map of the Women Veterans' Health Research Literature (2008-2015).Journal of general internal medicine · 2017Review
- Active engagement in a web-based tutorial to prevent obesity grounded in Fuzzy-Trace Theory predicts higher knowledge and gist comprehension.Behavior research methods · 2017Article
- Surveillance mammography use after treatment of primary breast cancer and racial disparities in survival.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2013Article
- The development and analysis of tutorial dialogues in AutoTutor Lite.Behavior research methods · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe conducted an economic evaluation of mammography promotion interventions in a population-based, nationally representative sample of 5500 women veterans.
methodsWomen 52 years and older were randomly selected from the National Registry of Women Veterans and randomly assigned to a survey-only control group and two intervention groups that varied in the extent of personalization (tailored vs. targeted). Effectiveness measures were the prevalence of at least one self-reported post-intervention mammogram and two post-intervention mammograms 6-15 months apart. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were the incremental cost per additional person screened. Uncertainty was examined with sensitivity analysis and bootstrap simulation.
resultsThe targeted intervention cost $25 per person compared to $52 per person for the tailored intervention. About 27% of the cost was incurred in identifying and recruiting the eligible population. The percent of women reporting at least one mammogram were .447 in the control group, .469 in the targeted group, and .460 in the tailored group. The ICER was $1116 comparing the targeted group to the control group (95% confidence interval (CI)=$493 to dominated). The tailored intervention was dominated (more costly and less effective) by the targeted intervention.
conclusionDecision-makers should consider effectiveness evidence and the full recruitment and patient time costs associated with the implementation of screening interventions when making investments in mammography screening promotion programs. Identification and recruitment of eligible participants add substantial costs to outreach screening promotion interventions. Tailoring adds substantial cost to the targeted mammography promotion strategy without a commensurate increase in effectiveness. Although cost-effectiveness has been reported to be higher for some in-reach screening promotion interventions, a recent meta-analysis revealed significant heterogeneity in the effect sizes of published health-plan based intervention studies for repeat mammography (i.e., some studies reported null effects compared with control groups).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.