Abstract
Background
Our urban safety-net hospital (SNH) has very low screening mammogram rates within its primary care clinics. Despite Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation, we see ~ 3 × more late-stage breast cancer diagnoses than other CoC sites across the country, and recently showed this to be strongly associated with lack of screening (Ahmadiyeh et al. in J Health Care Poor Underserved, in press, 2020). Here we study whether a two-step intervention (phone calls and assistance scheduling mammograms) increases uptake over usual care.
Patients and Methods
Randomized controlled study of 890 women aged 50–65 years who were due for biennial screening mammograms and who were established within one of five primary care clinics at an urban SNH. Each patient in the intervention group was called with overdue status (up to three times, voicemail left if needed) and offered assistance scheduling mammogram appointment. Mammography uptake at 3 and 6 months was analyzed.
Results
Intervention significantly increased uptake compared with usual care at both timepoints (18% versus 6% at 3 months; χ2 = 27.597, p < 0.0001; 23% versus 12% at 6 months; χ2 = 18.0, p < 0.0001), with scheduling component driving effectiveness. Of those who were successfully contacted, uptake was significantly greater among those who scheduled appointments versus those who did not (47% versus 9%, χ2 = 95, p < 0.0001), and uptake was no different between contacted but not scheduled patients and usual care controls.
Conclusions
Phone call with access-enhancing intervention (facilitating mammogram appointments) increased screening mammogram uptake among primary care patients in an urban safety-net setting and may be applicable to other urban SNHs around the country.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahmadiyeh N, Mendez M, Cheng A. Factors associated with late-stage breast cancer diagnosis in an urban safety-net hospital. J Health Care Poor Underserved. In press. Aug 2020 edition.
SEER. SEER*Stat Software. https://seer.cancer.gov/seerstat/index.html. Accessed March 17, 2020.
Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1998–2005.
Soojin A, Wooster M, Valente C et al. Impact of screening mammography on treatment in women diagnosed with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25(10) 2979–86.
Welch HG, Prorok PC, O’Malley AJ, Kramer BS. Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1438–47.
Helvie MA, Chang JT, Hendrick RE, Banerjee M. Reduction in late-stage breast cancer incidence in the mammography era: implications for overdiagnosis of invasive cancer. Cancer. 2014;120(17):2649–56.
Centers for Disease Control. National Center for Health Statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/contents2018.htm#Table_033. Updated October 30, 2019. Accessed March 29, 2020.
Healthy People 2020: Cancer. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/Cancer/objectives#4055. Updated March 29, 2020. Accessed March 29, 2020.
Legler J, Meissner HI, Coyne C, Breen N, Chollette V, Rimer BK. The effectiveness of interventions to promote mammography among women with historically lower rates of screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2002;11(1):59–71.
Landsberger HA (1958) Hawthorne revisited: management and the worker: its critics, and developments in human relations in industry. Cornell Studies in industrial and labor relations, v 9. Ithaca: Cornell University.
The CONSORT 2010 Flow diagram. CONSORT. http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement/flow-diagram. Accessed March 15, 2020.
Siu AL, Force USPST. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):279–96.
Gardner MP, Adams A, Jeffreys M. Interventions to increase the uptake of mammography amongst low income women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55574.
Andersen RM. A behavioral model of families’ use of health services. Research series No. 25. Chicago: Center for Health Administration Studies, University of Chicago; 1968.
Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav. 1995; 36(1):1–10.
Davidson PL, Andersen RM, Wyn RE, Brown RA. framework for evaluating safety-net and other community-level factors on access for low-income populations. Inquiry. 2004; 41(1):21–38.
Halabi S, Skiner CS, Samsa GP, Strigo TS, Crawford YS, Rimer BK. Factors associated with repeat mammography screening. J Fam Pract. 2000; 49(12):1104–12.
Stoll CR, Roberts S, Cheng MR, Crayton EV, Jackson S, Politi MC. Barriers to mammography among inadequately screened women. Health Educ Behav. 2015;42(1):8–15.
Ali-Faisal SF, Scott LB, Colella TJ, Medina-Jaudes N. Patient navigation effectiveness on improving cancer screening rates: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Oncol Navig Surviv. 2017;8(7):316–324.
Acknowledgments
We thank Carmella Cooper (medical assistant) and Melinda S. Frederick (mammogram technologist) for their invaluable support calling patients as part of this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosure
None of the authors have anything to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nanda, A.D., Mann, M.P., Cheng, AL. et al. Impact of Phone-Call and Access-Enhancing Intervention on Mammography Uptake among Primary Care Patients at an Urban Safety-Net Hospital: A Randomized Controlled Study. Ann Surg Oncol 27, 4643–4649 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08884-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08884-x