Trial reportThe American journal of managed care2012
Population-based breast cancer screening in a primary care network.
Trial report in The American journal of managed care, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sociodemographic correlates of cervix, breast and oral cancer screening among Indian women.PloS one · 2022Article
- Technology as the key to women's empowerment: a scoping review.BMC women's health · 2021Article
- Long-Term Impact of a Culturally Tailored Patient Navigation Program on Disparities in Breast Cancer Screening in Refugee Women After the Program's End.Health equity · 2019Article
- Multilevel Intervention Raises Latina Participation in Mammography Screening: Findings from ¡Fortaleza Latina!Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2016Article
- Evaluation of an Automated Information Extraction Tool for Imaging Data Elements to Populate a Breast Cancer Screening Registry.Journal of digital imaging · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the ability of a health information technology system to facilitate population- based breast cancer screening. STUDY
designCohort study with 2-year follow-up after a 1-year cluster randomized trial.
methodsStudy population was women 42 to 69 years old receiving care within a 12-practice primary care network. The management informatics system (1) identified women overdue for mammograms, (2) connected them to primary care providers using a web-based tool, (3) created automatically generated outreach letters for patients specified by providers, (4) monitored for subsequent mammography scheduling and completion, and (5) provided practice delegates with a list of women remaining unscreened for reminder phone calls. Eligible women overdue for a mammogram during a 1-year study period included those overdue at study start (prevalent cohort) and those who became overdue during follow-up (incident cohort). The main outcome measure was mammography completion rates over 3 years.
resultsAmong 32,688 eligible women, 9795 (30%) were overdue for screening (4487 intervention, 5308 control). Intervention patients were somewhat younger, more likely to be non-Hispanic white, and more likely to have health insurance compared with control patients. Adjusted completion rates in the prevalent cohort (n = 6697) were significantly higher among intervention patients after 3 years (51.7% vs 45.8%; P = .002). For patients in the incident cohort (n = 3098), adjusted completion rates after 2 years were 53.8% versus 48.7%, respectively (P = .052).
conclusionsPopulation-based informatics systems can enable sustained increases in mammography screening rates beyond rates seen with office-based visit reminders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23286611PMC3766952What 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.