Interventions to Promote Repeat Breast Cancer Screening With Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

被引:42
|
作者
Vernon, Sally W. [1 ]
McQueen, Amy [2 ]
Tiro, Jasmin A. [3 ]
del Junco, Deborah J. [4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas Sch Publ Hlth, Ctr Hlth Promot & Prevent Res, Div Hlth Promot & Behav Sci, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Washington Univ, Sch Med, Dept Med, Div Hlth Behav Res, St Louis, MO 63110 USA
[3] Univ Texas SW Med Ctr Dallas, Dept Clin Sci, Div Behav & Commun Sci, Dallas, TX 75390 USA
[4] Univ Texas Med Sch, Dept Surg & Pediat, Houston, TX USA
[5] Univ Texas Sch Publ Hlth, Div Epidemiol Human Genet & Environm Sci, Houston, TX USA
来源
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
CLIENT-DIRECTED INTERVENTIONS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; TAILORED INTERVENTIONS; PATIENT REMINDERS; COLORECTAL-CANCER; HEALTH BELIEF; WOMEN; CARE; ADHERENCE; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1093/jnci/djq223
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Various interventions to promote repeat use of mammography have been evaluated, but the efficacy of such interventions is not well understood. We searched electronic databases through August 15, 2009, and extracted data to calculate unadjusted effect estimates (odds ratios [ORs] and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]). Eligible studies were those that reported estimates of repeat screening for intervention and control groups. We tested homogeneity and computed summary odds ratios. To explore possible causes of heterogeneity, we performed stratified analyses, examined meta-regression models for 15 a priori explanatory variables, and conducted influence analyses. We used funnel plots and asymmetry tests to assess publication bias. Statistical tests were two-sided. The 25 eligible studies (27 effect estimates) were statistically significantly heterogeneous (Q = 69.5, I (2) = 63%, P < .001). Although there were homogeneous subgroups in some categories of the 15 explanatory variables, heterogeneity persisted after stratification. For all but one explanatory variable, subgroup summary odds ratios were similar with overlapping confidence intervals. The summary odds ratio for the eight heterogeneous reminder-only studies was the largest observed (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.41 to 2.29) and was statistically significantly greater than the summary odds ratio (P-diff = .008) for the homogeneous group of 17 studies that used the more intensive strategies of education/motivation or counseling (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.37). However, reminder-only studies remained statistically significantly heterogeneous, whereas the studies classified as education/motivation or counseling were homogeneous. Similarly, in meta-regression modeling, the only statistically significant predictor of the intervention effect size was intervention strategy (reminder-only vs the other two combined as the referent). Publication bias was not apparent. The observed heterogeneity precludes a summary effect estimate. We also cannot conclude that reminder-only intervention strategies are more effective than alternate strategies. Additional studies are needed to identify methods or strategies that could increase repeat mammography.
引用
收藏
页码:1023 / 1039
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Factors associated with attendance at screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Mottram, Rebecca
    Knerr, Wendy Lynn
    Gallacher, Daniel
    Fraser, Hannah
    Al-Khudairy, Lena
    Ayorinde, Abimbola
    Williamson, Sian
    Nduka, Chidozie
    Uthman, Olalekan A.
    Johnson, Samantha
    Tsertsvadze, Alexander
    Stinton, Christopher
    Taylor-Phillips, Sian
    Clarke, Aileen
    BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (11):
  • [32] Effectiveness of Motivationally Tailored Interventions on Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Pourebrahim-Alamdari, Parvin
    Mehrabi, Esmat
    Nikkhesal, Neda
    Nourizadeh, Roghaiyeh
    Esmaeilpour, Khalil
    Mousavi, Saeed
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH AND REPRODUCTION SCIENCES, 2021, 9 (02): : 86 - 90
  • [33] Overdiagnosis Due to Screening Mammography for Breast Cancer among Women Aged 40 Years and Over: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Flemban, Arwa F.
    JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE, 2023, 13 (03):
  • [34] REPEAT FECAL OCCULT BLOOD TESTS FOR COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
    Murphy, Caitlin C.
    Sen, Ahana
    Sigel, Bianca
    Mayo, Helen
    Singal, Amit G.
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2019, 156 (06) : S813 - S813
  • [35] Psychosocial interventions reduce cortisol in breast cancer patients: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Crow, Edith Meszaros
    Lopez-Gigosos, Rosa
    Mariscal-Lopez, Eloisa
    Agredano-Sanchez, Marina
    Garcia-Casares, Natalia
    Mariscal, Alberto
    Gutierrez-Bedmar, Mario
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2023, 14
  • [36] A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to reduce perceived stress in breast cancer patients
    Ding, Xiaotong
    Zhao, Fang
    Zhu, Mingyue
    Wang, Qing
    Wei, Shuaifang
    Xue, Jiajun
    Li, Zheng
    COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2024, 54
  • [37] Effects of psychosocial interventions for caregivers of breast cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Liu, Qin
    Ye, Fang
    Jiang, Xiaolian
    Zhong, Changtao
    Zou, Jinmei
    HELIYON, 2023, 9 (02)
  • [38] Obesity and Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Nisa M. Maruthur
    Shari Bolen
    Frederick L. Brancati
    Jeanne M. Clark
    Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2009, 24 : 665 - 677
  • [39] Obesity and Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Maruthur, Nisa M.
    Bolen, Shari
    Brancati, Frederick L.
    Clark, Jeanne M.
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2009, 24 (05) : 665 - 677
  • [40] Racial Disparities in Screening Mammography in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Ahmed, Ahmed T.
    Welch, Brian T.
    Brinjikji, Waked
    Farah, Wigdan H.
    Henrichsen, Tara L.
    Murad, M. Hassan
    Knudsen, John M.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2017, 14 (02) : 157 - 165