Bibliographic Details
| Title: |
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening Invitation Letters. |
| Authors: |
Decker, Kathleen M. (AUTHOR), Turner, Donna (AUTHOR), Demers, Alain A. (AUTHOR), Martens, Patricia J. (AUTHOR), Lambert, Pascal (AUTHOR), Chateau, Daniel (AUTHOR) |
| Source: |
Journal of Women's Health (15409996). Aug2013, Vol. 22 Issue 8, p687-693. 7p. |
| Subjects: |
Health promotion, Cervix uteri tumors, Census, Cluster analysis (Statistics), Confidence intervals, Epidemiology, Health behavior, Medical screening, Multivariate analysis, Nosology, Pap test, Population geography, Mathematical models of psychology, Statistical sampling, Logistic regression analysis, Data analysis, Randomized controlled trials, Print materials, Evaluation of human services programs, Data analysis software, Descriptive statistics, Diagnosis |
| Geographic Terms: |
Manitoba |
| Abstract: |
Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an invitation letter on cervical screening participation among unscreened women 30 to 69 years of age. Methods: A cluster randomized trial design was used in which unscreened women ( n=31,452) were randomized by the forward sortation area (FSA) of their postal code to an intervention group that was sent an invitation letter ( n=17,068) or a group that was not sent an invitation letter ( n=14,384). Results: Six months after the letters were mailed, 1,010 women in the intervention group (5.92%) and 441 women in the control group (3.06%) had a Pap test. After adjusting for variables that have previously shown to influence screening participation, women who were sent an invitation letter were significantly more likely to have had a Pap test in the next 6 months compared with women who were not sent an invitation letter (odds ratio [OR]=2.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.09-3.35, p<0.001). Overall, the effectiveness of the invitation letter improved with increasing age ( p=0.02). Conclusions: Sending invitation letters increased cervical screening participation but because the overall effect was small, additional strategies that remove barriers to screening for unscreened women are also necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Journal of Women's Health (15409996) is the property of Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| Database: |
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
