Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28452044›Full record

Trial reportTranslational behavioral medicine2017

Implementation and process evaluation of three interventions to promote screening mammograms delivered for 4 years in a large primary care population.

Roger Luckmann, Mary Jo White, Mary E Costanza, Christine F Frisard, Caroline Cranos, Susan Sama, Robert Yood

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Translational behavioral medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Roger LuckmannDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lave Ave. N, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA. LuckmanR@ummhc.org.ORCID 0000-0003-4852-0868
Mary Jo WhiteDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lave Ave. N, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA.
Mary E CostanzaDepartment of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA.
Christine F FrisardDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lave Ave. N, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA.
Caroline CranosDepartment of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA.
Susan SamaReliant Medical Group Research Department, 640 Lincoln Street, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA.
Robert YoodReliant Medical Group, 425 N Lake Ave, Worcester, MA, 01609, USA.
University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · USReliant Medical Group · 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
Implementation of a Mammography Reminder System in a Healthcare NetworkR18DP001141 · DP · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI LUCKMANN, ROGER S. · 2007 to 2009
$1.3M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS R18 DP001141NCI NIH HHS R01 CA132935
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The optimal form of outreach to promote repeated, on time screening mammograms in primary care has not been established. The purpose of this study is to assess the implementation process and process outcomes for three interventions for promoting biannual screening mammography in a randomized trial. In a large urban primary care practice over a 4-year period, we randomized women aged 40-85 and eligible for mammograms to three interventions: reminder letter only (LO), reminder letter + reminder call (RC), and reminder letter + counseling call (CC). We tracked information system development, staff training, patient and provider recruitment, reach, dose delivered and received, fidelity, and context measures. Ninety-three of 95 providers approved participation by 80% (23,999) of age-eligible patients, of whom only 207 (0.9%) opted not to receive any intervention. Of 9161 initial reminder letters mailed to women coming due or overdue for mammograms, 0.8% were undeliverable. Of women in the RC and CC arms unresponsive to the first reminder letter (n = 3982), 71.4% were called and reached, and of those, 49.1% scheduled a mammogram. Only 33.4% of women reached in the CC arm received full counseling, and women in the CC arm were less likely to schedule a mammogram than those in the RC arm. Implementing mail and telephone mammography reminders is feasible and acceptable in a large urban practice and reaches a majority of patients. Many schedule a mammogram when reached. A reminder letter followed by a simple reminder call if needed may be the optimal approach to promoting screening mammograms.

Indexed as

CounselingMammographyPrimary Health CareReminder SystemsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Plan ImplementationHealth PolicyHealth PromotionHumansMiddle AgedProgram EvaluationBreast cancerMammogramReminder systemScreeningTelephone counseling

Identifiers

PMID28452044
PMCPMC5645284
OpenAlexW2608396419

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.