Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21639900›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2011

Design and methods for a randomized clinical trial comparing three outreach efforts to improve screening mammography adherence.

Mary E Costanza, Roger Luckmann, Mary Jo White, Milagros C Rosal, Caroline Cranos, George Reed, Robin Clark, Susan Sama, Robert Yood

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01332032 (Promoting Breast Cancer Screening in Non-adherent Women), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 90% of its field
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.

NCT01332032 completednot on this map

Promoting Breast Cancer Screening in Non-adherent Women

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of Massachusetts, WorcesterRan2009 to 2015Enrolled36,348ConditionsBreast CancerArmsReminder Letter, Reminder Call, Counselor Call
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mary E CostanzaDepartment of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655, USA. mary.costanza@umassmed.edu
Roger Luckmann
Mary Jo White
Milagros C Rosal
Caroline Cranos
George Reed
Robin Clark
Susan Sama
Robert Yood
University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · US

Funding

Promoting Breast Cancer Screening in Non-Adherent WomenR01CA132935 · NCI · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI COSTANZA, MARY E, LUCKMANN, ROGER S. · 2009 to 2013
$3.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01CA 132935
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the demonstrated need to increase screening mammography utilization and strong evidence that mail and telephone outreach to women can increase screening, most managed care organizations have not adopted comprehensive outreach programs. The uncertainty about optimum strategies and cost effectiveness have retarded widespread acceptance. While 70% of women report getting a mammogram within the prior 2 years, repeat mammography rates are less than 50%. This 5-year study is conducted though a Central Massachusetts healthcare plan and affiliated clinic. All women have adequate health insurance to cover the test. METHODS/

designThis randomized study compares 3 arms: reminder letter alone; reminder letter plus reminder call; reminder letter plus a second reminder and booklet plus a counselor call. All calls provide women with the opportunity to schedule a mammogram in a reasonable time. The invention period will span 4 years and include repeat attempts. The counselor arm is designed to educate, motivate and counsel women in an effort to alleviate PCP burden.All women who have been in the healthcare plan for 24 months and who have a current primary care provider (PCP) and who are aged 51-84 are randomized to 1 of 3 arms. Interventions are limited to women who become ≥ 18 months from a prior mammogram. Women and their physicians may opt out of the intervention study.Measurement of completed mammograms will use plan billing records and clinic electronic records. The primary outcome is the proportion of women continuously enrolled for ≥ 24 months who have had ≥ 1 mammogram in the last 24 months. Secondary outcomes include the number of women who need repeat interventions. The cost effectiveness analysis will measure all costs from the provider perspective. DISCUSSION: So far, 18,509 women aged 51-84 have been enrolled into our tracking database and were randomized into one of three arms. At baseline, 5,223 women were eligible for an intervention. We anticipate that the outcome will provide firm data about the maximal effectiveness as well as the cost effectiveness of the interventions both for increasing the mammography rate and the repeat mammography rate.

trial registrationhttp://clinicaltrials.gov/NCT01332032.

Indexed as

Community-Institutional RelationsPatient CompliancePatient SatisfactionResearch DesignAgedAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMammographyManaged Care ProgramsMiddle AgedUnited States

Identifiers

PMID21639900
PMCPMC3133545
OpenAlexW2014393842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.