Article

Staging Mammography Nonadherent Women: A Qualitative Study

University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655, USA.
Journal of Cancer Education (Impact Factor: 1.23). 02/2008; 23(2):114-21. DOI: 10.1080/08858190802039094
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

Few studies have related stages of mammography screening nonadherence with the rationale used by overdue women.
We used a grounded theory approach to obtain and analyze data from focus groups, telephone interviews, and surveys. Emergent specific themes were compared with emerging decision levels of nonadherence. Each decision level was then compared with the Precaution Adoption Process Model and the Transtheoretical Model.
A total of 6 key themes influencing mammogram nonadherence emerged as did 6 decision levels. Variability within themes was associated with specific decision levels. The decision levels were not adequately classified by either stage model.
Stage-based educational strategies may benefit by tailoring interventions to these 6 decision levels.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Nancy R. Lapelle, Sep 18, 2015
    • "Les approches personnalisées sont de manière générale plus efficaces pour inciter au dépistage du cancer colorectal que les interventions standardisées (Rakowski et al., 1998). Ce bénéfice s'observe en faveur des courriers signés du médecin (Hewitson, Ward, Henegan, Halloran & Mant, 2011) ou encore des courriers présentant des arguments centrés sur la subjectivité (Orbell,Perugini & Rakow, 2004) ou le besoin spécifique en éducation du bénéficiaire (Ruffin, Fetters & Jimbo, 2007).Les stratégies appliquées au dépistage organisé restent cependant rares (Costanza et al., 2005 ;LaPelle et al., 2008). Sur un plan plus théorique, la littérature en psychologie compte une pluralité de modèles explicatifs du comportement (Munro, Lewin, Swart & Volmink, 2007). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The participation to colorectal cancer screening program determines the efficiency and costeffectiveness of the program. However, participation rates do not reach the expectations and decrease continuously. The goal of the present research was to test the efficiency of different communication strategies used to encourage eligible targets to colorectal cancer screening. The present study is a randomized controlled study conducted on 50 to 52 years old individuals. Two communications strategies were compared. The first was based on informed choice and exposed the pros and cons of screening. The second was based on the fear appeals. Three letters (informed choice, fear appeal and control letters) were conceived and sent to 8660 individuals who were eligible to a first time screening test. A phone interview was conducted with 40 individuals who did not receive screening, in order to measure their attitudes concerning the mail. Results indicated, first, that 25,90% of the subjects had read the mail inviting them to the screening test, and 13.70% were really screened. The three letters generated the same detection rate. However, the informed choice improved the quality of the information about the risks of the screening and aroused a bigger concern to be detected that the other mails. Results are discussed in light of the psychological models of prevention in term of health behaviors. The relevance of campaigns based on direct mailing is discussed in reference to the recent works in marketing.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale
  • Source
    • "During repeat calls, the Counselor will address any change in the subject's stage of readiness, beliefs and barriers. The Counselor protocol using the CATI (computer assisted telephone interviewing) system was detailed in our previous publication [44,45]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite 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. This 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. 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. http://clinicaltrials.gov/NCT01332032.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2011 · BMC Health Services Research

  • No preview · Article · Feb 2008 · Journal of Cancer Education
Show more