This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Informatics/ Internet in Medicine  • Internet  • Oncology  • Breast Cancer  • Women's Health  • Women's Health, Other  • Randomized Controlled Trial  • Screening  • Mammography  • Alert me on articles by topic

A Randomized Controlled Trial

Rajeev Chaudhry, MBBS, MPH; Sidna M. Scheitel, MD, MPH; Erin K. McMurtry, MS; Dorinda J. Leutink, RN; Rosa L. Cabanela, PhD; James M. Naessens, MPH; Ahmed S. Rahman, BS; Lynn A. Davis; Robert J. Stroebel, MD

Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(6):606-611.

Background  Screening mammography is recommended for early detection of breast cancer but screening rates remain suboptimal.

Methods  A primary care portal for a large academic primary practice was developed for all preventive services. Another Web-based system (PRECARES [PREventive CAre REminder System]) was developed for appointment secretaries to manage proactive breast cancer screening. Female patients aged 40 to 75 years were randomly assigned to a control group (usual care) and an intervention group. For the intervention group, 2 monthly letters inviting patients to undergo mammography were sent starting 3 months before they were due for annual screening, followed by a telephone call to nonresponding patients. A subgroup of women employees was further randomized to receive a reminder by either US mail or e-mail.

Results  Of the total eligible population of 6665 women identified as having consented to participate in research, 3339 were randomly assigned to the control group and 3326 to the intervention group. The screening rate for annual mammography was 64.3% for the intervention group and 55.3% for the control group (P <.001). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups for any of the other adult preventive services. For the employee subgroup, the screening rate was 57.5% for the control group, 68.1% for the US mail group, and 72.2% for the e-mail group (intervention vs control, P <.001; e-mail vs US mail; P = .24).

Conclusion  The breast cancer screening rate improved significantly with the practice redesign of having appointment secretaries proactively manage breast cancer screening needs.

Author Affiliations: Divisions of Primary Care Internal Medicine (Drs Chaudhry, Scheitel, and Stroebel and Ms Davis) and Health Care Policy and Research (Ms McMurtry, Dr Cabanela, and Messrs Naessens and Rahman), and the Quality Office (Ms Leutink), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Keeping Abreast of Mammography
JWatch Women's Health 2007;2007:2-2.
FULL TEXT