Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparisons of tailored mammography interventions at two months postintervention

  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

The recent decrease in breast cancer mortality has been linked in part to increased breast cancer screening. Although the percentage of women screened once is rising, rate of continued adherence is poor. The purpose of this article is to assess the effects of tailored mammography interventions implemented prospectively in a factorial design contrasting groups receiving either (a) usual care (no intervention), (b) tailored telephone counseling for mammography, (c) tailored mailed materials promoting mammography, or (d) a combination of tailored mail and telephone counseling. This prospective, randomized study with a 2 x 2 factorial design included women 51 years and older (N = 1,367) who were not adherent with mammography at baseline. The intervention is based on integration of the Transtheoretical and Health Belief Models. Participants were enrolled in one of two health maintenance organizations or seen in a university-related primary care clinic. Baseline data were collected on mammography history and beliefs and knowledge related to mammography. Data were collected via telephone interviews using previously developed scales. The follow-up interviewers were conducted with 976 women. The sample was 41% White, 56% African American, and 3% other. Mean age at baseline was 66.5. Logistic regression indicates that postintervention mammography status in all three intervention groups was significantly better than usual care, with odds ratios ranging from 1.66 (telephone only) to 2.16 (telephone plus mail).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo P: Cancer Statistics.Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2000,50:7–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Center for Disease Control and Prevention.Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 1997, 46:937-941.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Phillips KA, Kerlikowske K, Baker LC, Chang SW, Brown ML: Factors associated with women’s adherence to mammography screening guidelines.Health Services Research. 1998,33:29–53.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wagner TH: The effectiveness of mailed patient reminders on mammography screening: A meta-analysis.American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1998,14:64–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Davis NA, Nash E, Bailey C, et al.: Evaluation of three methods for improving mammography rates in a managed care plan.American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1997,13:298–302.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kreuter M, Skinner C: Tailoring: What's in a name.Health Education Research. 2000,15:1–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rimer BK, Halabi S, Skinner C, et al.: The short-term impact of tailored mammography decision-making interventions.Patient Education and Counseling. 2001,43:269–285.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Campbell MK, DeVellis BM, Strecher VJ, et al.: Improving dietary behavior: the effectiveness of tailored messages in primary care settings.American Journal of Public Health. 1994,84:783–787.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Champion VL: Strategies to increase mammography utilization.Medical Care. 1994,32:118–129.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Skinner CS, Strecher VJ, Hospers H: Physicians’ recommendations for mammography: Do tailored messages make a difference? [see comments].American Journal of Public Health. 1994,84:12–13, 43-49.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Skinner CS, Campbell MK, Rimer BK, Curry S, Prochaska JO: How effective is tailored print communication?Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 1999,21:290–298.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Strecher VJ, Kreuter M, Den Boer DJ, et al.: The effects of computer-tailored smoking cessation messages in family practice settings.Journal of Family Practice. 1994,39:262–270.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Champion VL, Huster G: Effect of interventions on stage of mammography adoption.Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1995,18:169–187.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. King ES, Rimer BK, Seay J, Balshem A, Engstrom PF: Promoting mammography use through progressive interventions: Is it effective?American Journal of Public Health. 1994,84:104–106.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Marcus AC, Bastani R, Reardon K, et al.: Proactive screening mammography counseling within the Cancer Information Service: Results from a randomized trial.Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs. 1993,14:119–129.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lipkus IM, Rimer BK, Halabi S, Strigo TS: Can tailored interventions increase mammography use among HMO women?American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2000,18:1–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Rakowski W, Ehrich B, Goldstein MG, et al.: Increasing mammography among women aged 40–74 by use of a stage-matched, tailored intervention.Preventive Medicine. 1998,27:748–756.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Breen N, Kessler L: Trends in cancer screening-United States, 1987 and 1992.Oncology (Huntington). 1996,10:328–330.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chevarley F, White E: Recent trends in breast cancer mortality among white and black US women.American Journal of Public Health. 1997,87:775–781.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Burns RB, McCarthy EP, Freund KM, et al.: Variability in mammography use among older women.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 1996,44:922–926.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mickey RM, Durski J, Worden JK, Danigelis NL: Breast cancer screening and associated factors or low-income African-American women.Preventive Medicine. 1995,24:467–476.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ruchlin HS: Prevalence and correlates of breast and cervical cancer screening among older women.Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1997,90:16–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Suarez L, Nicholas D, Roche R, et al.: Knowledge, behavior, and fears concerning breast and cervical cancer among older low-income Mexican-American women.American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1997,13:137–142.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bush RA, Langer RD: The effects of insurance coverage and ethnicity on mammography utilization in a postmenopausal population.Western Journal of Medicine. 1998,168:236–240.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Tudiver F, Fuller-Thomson E: Who has screening mammography? Results from the 1994-1995 National Population Health Survey.Canadian Family Physician. 1999,45:1901–1907.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hull CL:Principles of Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1943.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lewin K: Field theory and learning. In Cartwright D (ed),Field Theory in Social Science: Select Theoretical Papers. New York: HarperCollins, 1951 (1942).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF: The Transtheoretical Model of health behavior.American Journal of Health Promotion. 1997,12:38–48.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Skinner CS, Champion VL, Gonin R, Hanna M: Do perceived barriers and benefits vary by mammography stage?Psychology, Health & Medicine. 1997,2:65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Champion VL, Skinner CS, Foster JL: The effects of standard care counseling or telephone/in-person counseling on beliefs, knowledge, and behavior related to mammography screening.Oncology Nursing Forum. 2000,27:1565–1571.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Saywell {jrJr.} RM, Champion VL, Skinner CS, et al.: Cost-effectiveness comparison of five interventions to increase mammography screening.Preventive Medicine. 1999,29:374–382.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Champion VL: Instrument refinement for breast cancer screening behaviors.Nursing Research. 1993,42:139–143.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Champion VL: Revised susceptibility, benefits, and barriers scale for mammography screening.Research in Nursing & Health. 1999,22:341–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Rakowski W, Fulton JP, Feldman JP: Women’s decision making about mammography: A replication of the relationship between stages of adoption and decisional balance.Health Psychology. 1993,12:209–214.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kreuter MW,Farrell D, Olevitch L,Brennan L:Tailoring Health Messages: Customizing Communication with Computer Technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  36. (36)Ryan GL, Skinner CS, Farrell D, Champion VL: Examining the boundaries of tailoring: The utility of tailoring versus targeting mammography interventions for two distinct populations. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  37. SAS Institute Inc.:SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6.12 (4th Ed., Vol. 2). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Barratt A, Cockburn J, Smith D, Redman S: Reliability and validity of women's recall of mammographic screening.Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 1999,24:79–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University School of Nursing, 1111 Middle Drive, Room 338, 46202-5107, Indianapolis, IN

    Victoria L. Champion D.N.S., R.N., F.A.A.N. & Susan M. Rawl Ph.D., R.N.

  2. Duke University Comprehensive Cancer Center, USA

    Celette Sugg Skinner Ph.D.

  3. University of Utah, USA

    Usha Menon Ph.D., R.N., A.N.P.

  4. Chicago, Illinois

    Roopa Seshadri Ph.D.

  5. Walther Cancer Institute, USA

    Deborah C. Anzalone B.A.

Authors
  1. Victoria L. Champion D.N.S., R.N., F.A.A.N.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Celette Sugg Skinner Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Usha Menon Ph.D., R.N., A.N.P.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Roopa Seshadri Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Deborah C. Anzalone B.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Susan M. Rawl Ph.D., R.N.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victoria L. Champion D.N.S., R.N., F.A.A.N..

Additional information

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health-R01-04081-01A1. The study was approved by the Indiana University Institutional Review Board and was conducted with the informed consent of participants.

About this article

Cite this article

Champion, V.L., Skinner, C.S., Menon, U. et al. Comparisons of tailored mammography interventions at two months postintervention. ann. behav. med. 24, 211–218 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324796ABM2403_06

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324796ABM2403_06

Keywords

Search

Navigation