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
  • [41] Screening for lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Ali, Muhammad Usman
    Miller, John
    Peirson, Leslea
    Fitzpatrick-Lewis, Donna
    Kenny, Meghan
    Sherifali, Diana
    Raina, Parminder
    PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2016, 89 : 301 - 314
  • [42] Gastric cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Faria, Lidia
    Silva, Joao Carlos
    Rodriguez-Carrasco, Marta
    Pimentel-Nunes, Pedro
    Dinis-Ribeiro, Mario
    Libanio, Diogo
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2022, 57 (10) : 1178 - 1188
  • [43] Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Fitzpatrick-Lewis, Donna
    Ali, Muhammad Usman
    Warren, Rachel
    Kenny, Meghan
    Sherifali, Diana
    Raina, Parminder
    CLINICAL COLORECTAL CANCER, 2016, 15 (04) : 298 - 313
  • [44] Screening for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Peirson L.
    Fitzpatrick-Lewis D.
    Ciliska D.
    Warren R.
    Systematic Reviews, 2 (1)
  • [45] Machine Learning for Workflow Applications in Screening Mammography: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Hickman, Sarah E.
    Woitek, Ramona
    Le, Elizabeth Phuong Vi
    Im, Yu Ri
    Luxhoj, Carina Mouritsen
    Aviles-Rivero, Angelica, I
    Baxter, Gabrielle C.
    MacKay, James W.
    Gilbert, Fiona J.
    RADIOLOGY, 2022, 302 (01) : 88 - 104
  • [46] Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis or Mammography: A Meta-analysis of Cancer Detection and Recall
    Marinovich, M. Luke
    Hunter, Kylie E.
    Macaskill, Petra
    Houssami, Nehmat
    JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2018, 110 (09): : 942 - 949
  • [47] Efficacy of Interventions to Increase Colonoscopy Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Cranley, Nicole
    Beatty, Garrett
    Carnaby, Giselle
    Curbow, Barbara
    PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, 2015, 24 : 353 - 354
  • [48] A Meta-Analysis of Interventions to Promote Mammography Among Ethnic Minority Women
    Han, Hae-Ra
    Lee, Jong-Eun
    Kim, Jiyun
    Hedlin, Haley K.
    Song, Heejung
    Kim, Miyong T.
    NURSING RESEARCH, 2009, 58 (04) : 246 - 254
  • [49] Interventions to Promote End-of-Life Conversations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Gonella, Silvia
    Dimonte, Valerio
    Arnone, Ylenia
    Albanesi, Beatrice
    Berchialla, Paola
    Di Giulio, Paola
    van der Steen, J. T.
    JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2023, 66 (03) : E365 - E398
  • [50] Interventions to promote readiness for advance care planning: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Tan, Minghui
    Tang, Siyuan
    Feder, Shelli
    Xiao, Jinnan
    Huang, Chongmei
    Cook, Angus
    Johnson, Claire E.
    Ding, Jinfeng
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES, 2024, 156