-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Interventions to Promote Repeat Breast Cancer Screening With Mammography A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.txt
3155 lines (2929 loc) · 338 KB
/
Interventions to Promote Repeat Breast Cancer Screening With Mammography A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/102/14/1023.full
<!DOCTYPE html
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xml:lang="en"
lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
<title>Interventions to Promote Repeat Breast Cancer Screening With Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis </title>
<meta name="googlebot" content="NOODP" />
<meta name="HW.ad-path" content="/cgi/content/full/102/14/1023" />
<meta content="/jnci/102/14/1023.atom" name="HW.identifier" />
<meta name="DC.Format" content="text/html" />
<meta name="DC.Language" content="en" />
<meta content="Interventions to Promote Repeat Breast Cancer Screening With Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"
name="DC.Title" />
<meta content="10.1093/jnci/djq223" name="DC.Identifier" />
<meta content="2010-07-21" name="DC.Date" />
<meta content="Oxford University Press" name="DC.Publisher" />
<meta content="Sally W. Vernon" name="DC.Contributor" />
<meta content="Amy McQueen" name="DC.Contributor" />
<meta content="Jasmin A. Tiro" name="DC.Contributor" />
<meta content="Deborah J. del Junco" name="DC.Contributor" />
<meta content="Journal of the National Cancer Institute"
name="citation_journal_title" />
<meta content="JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst" name="citation_journal_abbrev" />
<meta content="0027-8874" name="citation_issn" />
<meta content="1460-2105" name="citation_issn" />
<meta name="citation_author" content="Sally W. Vernon" />
<meta name="citation_author" content="Amy McQueen" />
<meta name="citation_author" content="Jasmin A. Tiro" />
<meta name="citation_author" content="Deborah J. del Junco" />
<meta content="Interventions to Promote Repeat Breast Cancer Screening With Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"
name="citation_title" />
<meta content="07/21/2010" name="citation_date" />
<meta content="102" name="citation_volume" />
<meta content="14" name="citation_issue" />
<meta content="1023" name="citation_firstpage" />
<meta content="1039" name="citation_lastpage" />
<meta content="102/14/1023" name="citation_id" />
<meta content="102/14/1023" name="citation_id_from_sass_path" />
<meta content="jnci;102/14/1023" name="citation_mjid" />
<meta content="10.1093/jnci/djq223" name="citation_doi" />
<meta content="http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/102/14/1023.abstract"
name="citation_abstract_html_url" />
<meta content="http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/102/14/1023.full"
name="citation_fulltext_html_url" />
<meta content="http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/102/14/1023.full.pdf"
name="citation_pdf_url" />
<meta content="/content/102/14.cover.gif" name="issue_cover_image" />
<meta content="http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/102/14/1023"
name="citation_public_url" />
<meta content="20587790" name="citation_pmid" />
<meta name="citation_section" content="Article" />
<meta name="robots" content="noarchive,nofollow" />
<meta name="googlebot" content="noarchive" />
<link href="/content/102/14/1012.short" rel="prev" />
<link href="/content/102/14/1040.short" rel="next" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all" href="/shared/css/hw-global.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print" href="/shared/css/hw-print.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/local/css/hw-local-global.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/publisher/css/hw-publisher-global.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/publisher/css/hw-publisher-ac.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/shared/css/hw-page-content.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/shared/css/jquery.fancybox-1.3.4.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/shared/css/hw-global-colexpand.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/publisher/css/hw-publisher-page-content.css" /><script type="text/javascript" id="session-d29283695e1">var callbackToken='537D30CAE06D5CF';</script><script type="text/javascript" id="session-d29283695e3">
var subCode='oupjournal_sub';
</script><script type="text/javascript">
var gAuthTimeStamp = '2015-10-27T12:12:21.447-07:00';
var gSessionId = 'FMmnow2n1rcXsiLO-o3RaA';
var gAuthzRequired = 'false';
var gAuthnMethods1 = 'ip ip';
var gAuthnMethods2 = 'ip,ip';
var gAuthnIPs = '18.189.59.169,18.189.59.169';
var gAuthnIndividuals = '';
var gAuthnInstitutions = '10005282,10072538,10328193,100274300,10082403,05094000,10093227,153074108,10080507,21879000,10095822,10081742,10082405,10004595,10019502,10082401,07635000,10082404,06602000';
</script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/jquery-min.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/fingerprint.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/hw-shared.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/publisher/js/hw-publisher-site.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/local/js/local-js-vars.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/pages/hw-content.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/fancybox/jquery.fancybox-1.3.4.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/fancybox/jquery.easing-1.3.pack.js"></script><script type="text/javascript"
src="/shared/js/fancybox/jquery.mousewheel-3.0.4.pack.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/util/content.jquery.addVariantLink.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/util/hw-col-expand.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/publisher/js/hw-publisher-modalwin-vars.js"></script><script type="text/javascript"
src="/publisher/js/hw-publisher-article-dynamic-elements.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/publisher/js/hw-publisher-content.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/util/hw-mathjax.js"></script><script type="text/x-mathjax-config">
MathJax.Hub.Config({
tex2jax: {
inlineMath: [["$","$"],["\\(","\\)"]],
processClass: "tex2jax_process|mathjax"
}
});
MathJax.Hub.Queue(function() {
gColTempResize = true;
fixColHeights(1);
gColTempResize = false;
});
</script><script type="text/javascript"
src="http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS-MML_HTMLorMML"></script><script type="text/javascript">
var siqDOI = encodeURIComponent("10.1093/jnci/djq223");
var siqIsOpenAccess = encodeURIComponent("");
var siqPubDate = encodeURIComponent("20100721");
if (siqDOI.length == 0) {
siqDOI = "UNKNOWN";
}
if (gAuthnIndividuals.length != 0) {
if (gAuthnInstitutions.length != 0) {
authnEntity = encodeURIComponent(gAuthnIndividuals
+ ',' + gAuthnInstitutions);
} else {
authnEntity = encodeURIComponent(gAuthnIndividuals);
}
} else {
authnEntity = encodeURIComponent(gAuthnInstitutions);
}
var commonString =
'authSessionId=' + gSessionId + String.fromCharCode(0x26)
+ 'authzRequired=' + gAuthzRequired + String.fromCharCode(0x26)
+ 'authentication_method=' + encodeURIComponent(gAuthnMethods2) + String.fromCharCode(0x26)
+ 'authnIPs=' + gAuthnIPs + String.fromCharCode(0x26)
+ 'authnInstitutions=' + authnEntity;
var gPageId = "pageid-content";
var gVariant = "full-text";
// Not completely done
var eventType = "full-text";
var accessType;
if (siqIsOpenAccess == 'true') {
accessType = 'SOA';
} else {
accessType = 'subscription';
}
var NTPT_PGEXTRA =
commonString + String.fromCharCode(0x26)
+ 'event_type=' + eventType + String.fromCharCode(0x26)
+ 'publication_date=' + siqPubDate + String.fromCharCode(0x26)
+ 'access_type=' + accessType + String.fromCharCode(0x26)
+ 'doi=' + siqDOI ;
// alert("NTPT_PGEXTRA is " + NTPT_PGEXTRA);
</script><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all" href="/resource/css/hw20.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/resource/css/h20-oup-header.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/resource/css/h20-oup-footer.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/resource/css/h20-oup-sidebars.css" />
<link type="text/css" media="all" rel="stylesheet" href="/site/resource/jnci_h20.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/resource/css/print.css" media="print" /><script type="text/javascript" src="/resource/js/main.js"></script><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="http://oi-underbar.ifactory.com/underbar/css/pf_oiunderbar.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen"
href="http://gab.cookie.oup.com/aws-cookie/jquery.fancybox-1.3.4_1.css" /><script type="text/javascript" src="/resource/js/oup_ad_size.js"></script></head>
<body class="general_page journal jnci">
<div class="hw-gen-page pagetype-content hw-pub-id-article" id="pageid-content"
itemscope="itemscope"
itemtype="http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle">
<noscript>
<p>We use cookies to enhance your experience on our website. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our use of
cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time. <a href="http://global.oup.com/cookiepolicy/">Find out more</a></p>
</noscript>
<p class="hide">
<a href="#content">Skip Navigation</a>
</p>
<div id="secondary_nav">
<strong id="page_logo" title="Oxford Journals"><a href="http://www.oxfordjournals.org/"><span>Oxford Journals</span></a></strong>
<ul>
<li id="nav_contact_us" title="Contact Us"><a href="http://www.oxfordjournals.org/contact_us.html"><span>Contact Us</span></a></li>
<li id="nav_my_basket" title="My Basket"><a href="https://secure.oxfordjournals.org/basket.html"><span>My Basket</span></a></li>
<li id="nav_my_account" title="My Account"><a href="http://services.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/tslogin?url=http://www.oxfordjournals.org/service/Register"><span>My
Account</span></a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="header">
<h1 id="page_title" title="JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst"><a href="/"><span>
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst
</span></a></h1>
</div>
<div id="primary_nav">
<ul>
<li id="nav_about_this_journal" title="About This Journal">
<a href="http://www.oxfordjournals.org/jnci/about.html">
<span>About This Journal</span>
</a>
</li>
<li id="nav_contact_this_journal" title="Contact This Journal"><a href="/cgi/feedback/"><span>Contact This Journal</span></a></li>
<li id="nav_subscriptions" title="Subscriptions">
<a href="http://www.oxfordjournals.org/jnci/access_purchase/buy_online.html">
<span>Subscriptions</span>
</a>
</li>
<li id="nav_current_issue" title="Current"><a href="/content/current"><span>View Current Issue (Volume 107 Issue 10 October 2015)</span></a></li>
<li id="nav_archive" title="Archive"><a href="/content/by/year"><span>Archive</span></a></li>
<li id="nav_search" title="Search"><a href="/search"><span>Search</span></a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="user_nav">
<div class="header-ac-elements">
<div id="authstring">
<ul>
<li class="subscr-ref">Institution: MIT Libraries</li>
<li class="no-left-border">
<a href="/login?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fjnci.oxfordjournals.org%2Fcontent%2F102%2F14%2F1023.full">
Sign In as Personal Subscriber
</a>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<ul id="site-breadcrumbs">
<li class="first"><a href="http://services.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/tslogin?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oxfordjournals.org">Oxford Journals</a></li>
<li><span class="breadcrumb_subjects"><a href="http://www.oxfordjournals.org/subject/medicine/"
class="breadcrumb_subject">Medicine & Health</a></span></li>
<li><a href="/">JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst</a></li>
<li><a href="/content/102/14.toc">
<span xmlns="" class="volume-value">Volume 102</span>
<span xmlns="" class="issue-value"> Issue 14</span></a></li>
<li>Pp. <span class="slug-pages">
1023-1039.
</span></li>
</ul>
<div id="oas_top" class="ad_hidden">
<iframe id="id_advertframe_top"
src="/resource/htmlfiles/advert.html?p=Top&u=jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/102/14/1023.full"
width="0"
height="0"
frameborder="0"
scrolling="no"
class="resize_ad"></iframe>
</div>
<a name="content"></a>
<div id="h20_page"></div>
<div id="content-block">
<div class="article fulltext-view" itemprop="articleBody"><span class="highwire-journal-article-marker-start"></span><h1 id="article-title-1" itemprop="headline">Interventions to Promote Repeat Breast Cancer Screening With Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</h1>
<div class="contributors">
<ol class="contributor-list" id="contrib-group-1">
<li class="contributor" id="contrib-1" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope"
itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span class="name" itemprop="name"><a class="name-search"
href="/search?author1=Sally+W.+Vernon&sortspec=date&submit=Submit">Sally W. Vernon</a></span>,
</li>
<li class="contributor" id="contrib-2" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope"
itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span class="name" itemprop="name"><a class="name-search"
href="/search?author1=Amy+McQueen&sortspec=date&submit=Submit">Amy McQueen</a></span>,
</li>
<li class="contributor" id="contrib-3" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope"
itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span class="name" itemprop="name"><a class="name-search"
href="/search?author1=Jasmin+A.+Tiro&sortspec=date&submit=Submit">Jasmin A. Tiro</a></span> and
</li>
<li class="last" id="contrib-4"><span class="name"><a class="name-search"
href="/search?author1=Deborah+J.+del+Junco&sortspec=date&submit=Submit">Deborah J. del Junco</a></span></li>
</ol>
<ol class="affiliation-list">
<li class="aff"><a id="aff-1" name="aff-1"></a><address><strong>Affiliations of authors:</strong> Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, Division of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, University of
Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX (SWV); Division of Health Behavior Research, Department of Medicine, Washington
University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO (AM); Division of Behavioral and Communication Sciences, Department of Clinical
Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX (JAT); Department of Surgery and Pediatrics, University
of Texas Medical School and Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas School
of Public Health, Houston, TX (DJdJ)
</address>
</li>
</ol>
<ol class="corresp-list">
<li class="corresp" id="corresp-1"><strong>Correspondence to:</strong><br /> Sally W. Vernon, PhD, Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, Division of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences,
University of Texas School of Public Health, 7000 Fannin, Ste 2560, Houston, TX 77030 (e-mail: <span class="em-link"><span class="em-addr">sally.w.vernon{at}uth.tmc.edu</span></span>).
</li>
</ol>
<ul class="history-list">
<li xmlns:hwp="http://schema.highwire.org/Journal" class="received"
hwp:start="2009-05-20"><span class="received-label">Received </span>May 20, 2009.
</li>
<li xmlns:hwp="http://schema.highwire.org/Journal" class="rev-recd"
hwp:start="2010-05-19"><span class="rev-recd-label">Revision received </span>May 19, 2010.
</li>
<li xmlns:hwp="http://schema.highwire.org/Journal" class="accepted"
hwp:start="2010-05-20"><span class="accepted-label">Accepted </span>May 20, 2010.
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="section abstract" id="abstract-1" itemprop="description">
<div class="section-nav">
<div class="nav-placeholder"> </div><a href="#sec-11" title="Methods" class="next-section-link"><span>Next Section</span></a></div>
<h2>Abstract</h2>
<div id="sec-1" class="subsection">
<p id="p-1"><strong>Background</strong> Various interventions to promote repeat use of mammography have been evaluated, but the efficacy of such interventions is
not well understood.
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-2" class="subsection">
<p id="p-2"><strong>Methods</strong> 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.
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-3" class="subsection">
<p id="p-3"><strong>Results</strong> The 25 eligible studies (27 effect estimates) were statistically significantly heterogeneous (<em>Q</em> = 69.5, <em>I</em> <sup>2</sup> = 63%, <em>P</em> < .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 (<em>P</em><sub>diff</sub> = .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.
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-4" class="subsection">
<p id="p-4"><strong>Conclusions</strong> 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.
</p>
</div>
</div>
<p id="p-5">
<div class="boxed-text" id="boxed-text-1">
<div id="sec-5" class="subsection">
<h4>CONTEXTS AND CAVEATS</h4>
<div id="sec-6" class="subsection">
<h5>Prior knowledge</h5>
<p id="p-6">Regular mammography screening has been shown to reduce mortality from breast cancer in women aged 50–74 years, but it is not
known whether interventions to promote regular screening, for example, reminders, educational outreach, and counseling, are
effective.
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-7" class="subsection">
<h5>Study design</h5>
<p id="p-7">The effectiveness of various intervention strategies was examined in a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that
reported estimates of repeat screening for intervention and control groups.
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-8" class="subsection">
<h5>Contribution</h5>
<p id="p-8">The 25 analyzed studies were heterogeneous overall, as were most subgroups in a stratified analysis. The intervention effect
of a group of reminder-only studies was statistically significantly greater than that of a group of studies that used more
intensive strategies such as education/motivation or counseling.
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-9" class="subsection">
<h5>Implications</h5>
<p id="p-9">Heterogeneity prevents firm conclusions about the effectiveness of more intensive vs less intensive strategies. More studies
with consistent designs and well-defined intervention categories are needed.
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-10" class="subsection">
<h5>Limitations</h5>
<p id="p-10">Not all studies compared participants with dropouts or reported differential attrition by study group, which may result in
overestimated effect sizes. Most of the studies were conducted more than 10 years ago, and most were of non-Hispanic white
women, so the results may not be applicable to the present day or to other ethnic groups.
</p>
<p id="p-11"><em>From the Editors</em></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</p>
<p id="p-12">Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in women in the United States (<a id="xref-ref-1-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-1">1</a>). Regular screening with mammography has been shown to reduce mortality from breast cancer in women aged 50–74 years by approximately
23% (<a id="xref-ref-2-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-2">2</a>). To maximize the population benefit related to mortality reduction, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended in
2002 that women aged 40 years and older be screened with mammography every 1–2 years. Although the Task Force has raised the
minimum age for biennial screening to 50 years of age, they still suggest that younger women discuss mammography with their
doctors to make an informed decision based on their family histories, personal values, and general health (<a href="http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm">http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm</a>) (<a id="xref-ref-3-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-3">3</a>). Breast cancer screening with mammography increased substantially since 1990. Surveillance data from the National Health
Interview Survey show that the prevalence of self-reported recent use (within the past 2 years) in women 40 years of age and
older increased from 30% in 1987 to 70% in 2000 (<a id="xref-ref-4-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-4">4</a>); however, data from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey show a decline to 66% (<a id="xref-ref-5-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-5">5</a>). The prevalence of regular or repeat mammography use, that is, consecutive, on-schedule mammograms, is lower compared with
recent use, that is, one mammogram within the past 2 years. A review of 37 regional studies of repeat mammography conducted
through 2001 found that the overall weighted average prevalence was 46.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 39.4 to 52.8) (<a id="xref-ref-6-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-6">6</a>). Summary estimates also showed that repeat use increased from 26.5% (95% CI = 12.9 to 40.0) in studies conducted before
1991 to 53.2% (95% CI = 44.7 to 61.8) in those conducted between 1995 and 2001 (<a id="xref-ref-6-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-6">6</a>).
</p>
<p id="p-13">Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that many intervention strategies are effective at motivating women to have
one mammogram during the study period (<a id="xref-ref-7-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-7">7</a>–<a id="xref-ref-19-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-19">19</a>). Most meta-analyses consistently show that minimal interventions such as reminders directed at patients (<a id="xref-ref-7-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-7">7</a>,<a id="xref-ref-8-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-8">8</a>,<a id="xref-ref-10-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-10">10</a>–<a id="xref-ref-12-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-12">12</a>,<a id="xref-ref-14-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-14">14</a>,<a id="xref-ref-17-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-17">17</a>,<a id="xref-ref-19-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-19">19</a>) or providers (<a id="xref-ref-13-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-13">13</a>–<a id="xref-ref-15-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-15">15</a>,<a id="xref-ref-18-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-18">18</a>) delivered through a variety of communication channels are effective in increasing one-time mammography screening compared
with a no-intervention control group. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses also demonstrate that more intensive patient-directed
interventions, including those using multiple strategies (eg, letter plus telephone call, letter plus voucher), those tailored
to an individual’s beliefs or characteristics (eg, a personalized message that addresses a woman's concerns such as fear of
finding cancer), and those based on health behavior theories (a list of theories commonly used in health promotion research
is available at <a href="http://dccps.cancer.gov/brp/constructs">http://dccps.cancer.gov/brp/constructs</a>) reported larger intervention effects compared with a no-intervention control group or with minimal interventions, such as
mail or telephone reminders (<a id="xref-ref-7-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-7">7</a>,<a id="xref-ref-11-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-11">11</a>,<a id="xref-ref-12-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-12">12</a>,<a id="xref-ref-16-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-16">16</a>,<a id="xref-ref-19-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-19">19</a>). Reducing barriers to access such as cost or transportation also is associated with increased mammography use (<a id="xref-ref-8-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-8">8</a>,<a id="xref-ref-17-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-17">17</a>).
</p>
<p id="p-14">In contrast to interventions to promote one-time screening, the efficacy of interventions designed to promote regular mammography
screening is not well understood (<a id="xref-ref-20-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-20">20</a>). To our knowledge, there is no systematic review or meta-analysis of interventions that promote repeat mammography screening,
perhaps because fewer interventions have reported repeat mammography outcomes compared with one-time use. Developing approaches
to encourage women to maintain a regular schedule of mammography screening is needed if we are to realize a reduction in breast
cancer mortality.
</p>
<p id="p-15">We conducted a systematic review of repeat mammography intervention studies, in which we evaluated sampling, methods, and
intervention characteristics. We examined consistency of effect across studies and assessed completeness of reporting on selected
study characteristics related to internal and external validity. We also identified gaps in the literature and make recommendations
for further research.
</p>
<div class="section methods" id="sec-11">
<div class="section-nav"><a href="#abstract-1" title="Abstract" class="prev-section-link"><span>Previous Section</span></a><a href="#sec-17" title="Results" class="next-section-link"><span>Next Section</span></a></div>
<h2>Methods</h2>
<div id="sec-12" class="subsection">
<h3>Search Strategy</h3>
<p id="p-16">We conducted electronic database searches in consultation with a medical librarian who was trained in systematic review literature
searches to identify articles reporting the effects of behavioral interventions on repeat mammography. We concluded the database
searches on August 15, 2009. First, we searched MEDLINE (OVID) from 1966. Then, we adapted the search for CINAHL (OVID) from
1982, PsycInfo (OVID) from 1967, and Academic Search Premier (EBSCO) from 1990. We repeated the search terms used in the Clark
et al. review (<a id="xref-ref-6-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-6">6</a>), which paired “mammogra$” and seven keywords: “regular,” “repeat,” “adherence,” “compliance,” “annual,” “rescreen,” and
“maintenance” (“maint$”); we added “biennial,” “on schedule,” and “guideline$.” We used several search terms to identify controlled
trials or interventions, as recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration (<a id="xref-ref-21-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-21">21</a>). We combined search results from the two previous steps and then limited the results to human studies published in English
that were not editorials, commentaries, letters to the editor, reviews, or meta-analyses. Using Medical Subject Headings terms
(<a href="http://scientific.thomson.com/support/faq/wok3new/medline/#MeSH">http://scientific.thomson.com/support/faq/wok3new/medline/#MeSH</a>), we further excluded studies that focused on diagnostic techniques and procedures, biopsy, and drug therapy. Reference lists
from eligible articles and observational studies of repeat mammography were hand searched for additional reports. We also
hand searched the Cochrane databases (<a href="http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/index.html">http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/index.html</a>) for eligible studies, as well as literature reviews of mammography interventions.
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-13" class="subsection">
<h3>Selection Criteria</h3>
<p id="p-17">To be included, studies had to report an estimate of repeat mammography use for at least one intervention group and one concurrent
comparison group. We used the Clark et al. (<a id="xref-ref-6-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-6">6</a>) definition of repeat screening, that is, at least two consecutive, on-schedule mammograms during a given period (approximately
1–2 years apart); a certain number of mammograms during a given period (at least two within the past 5 years); or at least
two mammograms on an age-appropriate schedule (eg, biennially for women in their forties). Like Clark et al. (<a id="xref-ref-6-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-6">6</a>), we excluded studies defining repeat mammography as more than one lifetime mammogram without regard to period, receipt of
a single mammogram with an intention to obtain future screening, or behaviors of health-care providers such as a recommendation
to get screened. The intervention had to include women at average risk for breast cancer, but it also could address other
health-related behaviors in addition to mammography, such as other cancer screening behaviors, smoking, or physical activity.
</p>
<p id="p-18">Two authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts to identify relevant articles according to the inclusion and exclusion
criteria. Full-text articles were reviewed for eligibility when more information was needed. A hierarchical categorization
scheme was applied to each study to determine eligibility. Studies were first classified as including an intervention or no
intervention. Intervention studies were considered for inclusion and further classified as having repeat mammography as an
outcome. Disagreements about study eligibility were discussed with all coauthors until consensus was reached.
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-14" class="subsection">
<h3>Data Extraction to Describe Sampling, Methods, and Intervention Characteristics of Eligible Studies</h3>
<p id="p-19">We used a standardized data extraction form to record descriptive information from eligible studies. In studies of women with
diverse mammography histories, we included only the subgroup of women who were eligible to complete at least one repeat mammogram.
Specifically, we identified two types of study designs used in intervention studies of repeat mammography. In the most common
type of design, study participants with a recent (ie, not overdue) mammogram before the intervention were followed long enough
to receive one postintervention mammogram on schedule (hereafter referred to as design 1). In the other design, study subjects
were followed long enough to receive two postintervention mammograms on schedule regardless of mammography history (hereafter
referred to as design 2).
</p>
<p id="p-20">We extracted information on the following study characteristics: year(s) the study was conducted, age range of participants,
race/ethnicity (percent white was used rather than a racial or ethnic breakdown because most of the studies reporting racial/ethnic
composition of the study population had studied white women), study setting (health care or community), percent of the sample
with a recent mammogram at study baseline, screening interval used to measure adherence (1 year, 2 years, or age dependent
[biennially for women in their forties and annually or biennially for women in their fifties]), study design type (1 or 2),
data source for mammography status (medical records, administrative or program data, or self-report), intervention strategy,
mode of intervention delivery (mail only, telephone only, mail plus telephone, mail plus in person, or community education
plus other modes), number of study groups, type of control group (no contact, survey only, or active [alternative intervention
of equal or lower intensity]), theoretic framework [eg, health belief model (<a id="xref-ref-22-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-22">22</a>)], and theoretic constructs (eg, barriers such as cost and stage of change or readiness to be screened [<a href="http://dccps.cancer.gov/brp/constructs">http://dccps.cancer.gov/brp/constructs</a>]).
</p>
<p id="p-21">For studies that included more than one intervention group, we abstracted information on the intervention strategy of greatest
intensity (eg, personalized vs generic messages or multiple vs single strategies) or based on the author's hypothesis. For
example, Finney and Iannotti (<a id="xref-ref-23-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-23">23</a>) tested messages framed in terms of what would be gained or lost by getting a mammogram and hypothesized that messages emphasizing
what would be lost by not being screened would be more effective than messages emphasizing what would be gained. We also abstracted
information on delivery mode and on theoretic frameworks and constructs only for the group that received the most intensive
intervention. Where relevant, we identified the theoretic constructs used to deliver tailored messages. For example, Clark
et al. (<a id="xref-ref-6-6" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-6">6</a>) created letters using each woman's interview responses to questions about her stage of change or readiness to get a mammogram
and her perceived benefits of and barriers to getting screened.
</p>
<p id="p-22">A variety of approaches have been used to describe and classify intervention strategies, and no one approach is considered
the gold standard (<a id="xref-ref-24-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-24">24</a>). Because there is no agreed-upon classification, we classified intervention strategies in three ways. Our primary classification
was informed by health behavior theory (<a href="http://dccps.cancer.gov/brp/constructs">http://dccps.cancer.gov/brp/constructs</a>) and consisted of three categories: reminder, education/motivation, and counseling. We based this classification on the work
of Kreuter et al. (<a id="xref-ref-25-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-25">25</a>,<a id="xref-ref-26-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-26">26</a>) who describe intervention strategies and messages in terms of their personal relevance to the recipient. In general, generic
messages such as mailed reminders are considered to be the least intensive, whereas communication based on an assessment of
a person's beliefs and attitudes and delivered through interpersonal communication channels is considered to be the most intensive.
Reminders, whether generic or personalized, consisted of minimal print or telephone messages that served as a cue to action
or prompt by letting women know that they were due for screening. Reminders could contain minimal information such as a statement
that a woman was due for screening and should call to schedule an appointment, or they could contain brief motivational messages
based on health behavior theory, along with the reminder. Educational/motivational strategies consisted of print messages
to increase knowledge, facilitate attitude change, and motivate women to be screened. Messages may or may not be personalized
on the basis of information obtained from personal assessments (eg, surveys or interviews) or from other data sources such
as medical records. Counseling strategies, typically delivered over the telephone or in person, are considered to be the most
personalized form of communication because they engage women in a dialogue in an attempt to change attitudes, address barriers
such as perceived risk of developing breast cancer or fear of pain from the mammogram, and motivate women to be screened.
If an intervention used multiple strategies, we classified it based on the most intensive strategy.
</p>
<p id="p-23">Our second approach to classifying intervention strategies was to contrast the subset of studies that explicitly stated that
they used barriers-specific telephone counseling with those that did not. Barriers-specific telephone counseling is an intervention
approach used by the National Cancer Institute's Breast Cancer Screening Consortium (<a id="xref-ref-27-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-27">27</a>), in which a counselor uses a standardized protocol to identify a person's barriers to performing a health behavior and provides
information to address and overcome the barriers. In the third approach, we classified intervention strategies based on whether
the study used a single intervention strategy (eg, reminder only) or multiple strategies (eg, reminder plus another strategy).
We also classified intervention delivery in two ways: by delivery channel (eg, mail only, telephone only) and by whether a
single mode or multiple modes were used.
</p>
<p id="p-24">Eligible studies were assigned to one coauthor (S. W. Vernon, A. McQueen, J. A. Tiro) for review. To assess reliability, one
coauthor (D. J. del Junco) reviewed a randomly selected 10% sample of the studies; disagreements were discussed by all authors
until consensus was reached. Data to calculate effect size estimates were independently extracted by two coauthors, and disagreements
were discussed by all authors until consensus was reached. When available, we reviewed other published reports of the same
study; however, in only one instance, did we gain additional relevant information. In that case, companion articles reported
on different aspects of a single study, and we treated these reports as one study (<a id="xref-ref-28-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-28">28</a>,<a id="xref-ref-29-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-29">29</a>). We did not contact authors to obtain unpublished data or missing information because that source is not readily available
to readers and because we wanted to evaluate the extent to which selected study characteristics were reported in the published
literature.
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-15" class="subsection">
<h3>Statistical Analysis of Intervention Effects and Potential Explanatory Variables</h3>
<p id="p-25">Every study produced one or more comparisons of an intervention group with a control group. When there was more than one intervention
condition, we contrasted the most intensive intervention condition with the control condition. Odds ratio (OR) effect sizes
and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using cell frequencies or proportions from 2 × 2 contingency tables (<a id="xref-ref-30-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-30">30</a>). We recalculated unadjusted odds ratios and confidence intervals for all studies; however, for two studies (<a id="xref-ref-31-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-31">31</a>,<a id="xref-ref-32-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-32">32</a>), insufficient data were available, and we used adjusted estimates reported by the authors. Statistical tests were two-sided.
</p>
<p id="p-26">Tests for measuring heterogeneity were conducted using the <em>Q</em> statistic with a <em>P</em> < .05 criterion and an <em>I</em> <sup>2</sup> statistic with a cutoff greater than or equal to 50% to indicate substantial heterogeneity (<a id="xref-ref-33-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-33">33</a>). A statistically significant <em>Q</em> indicates a heterogeneous distribution of study effect sizes, which may then warrant additional subgroup analyses (<a id="xref-ref-30-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-30">30</a>). The <em>I</em> <sup>2</sup> statistic describes the percentage of the variability in effect estimates because of heterogeneity rather than sampling error
or chance alone (<a id="xref-ref-33-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-33">33</a>). Heterogeneity tests were not performed when there were fewer than five observations in a category of a variable. Heterogeneity
tests were performed using STATA 10.0 (<a id="xref-ref-34-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-34">34</a>).
</p>
<p id="p-27">Variance-weighted summary effect sizes were computed. We used a fixed-effects model to summarize homogeneous distributions.
For heterogeneous distributions, we report summarizations based on random-effects models (<a id="xref-ref-35-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-35">35</a>). We also performed random-effects meta-regression analyses using STATA on potential explanatory variables of intervention
effects (<a id="xref-ref-35-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-35">35</a>,<a id="xref-ref-36-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-36">36</a>). Meta-regressions were performed with each variable univariately, with a forward variable selection procedure that included
variables with a univariate <em>P</em> less than .25 and eliminated variables with a multivariable-adjusted <em>P</em> greater than .05.
</p>
<p id="p-28">For the heterogeneity and meta-regression analyses, we based our a priori choice of potential explanatory variables on prior
systematic reviews of studies that measured completion of one mammogram during the study period (<a id="xref-ref-8-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-8">8</a>,<a id="xref-ref-16-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-16">16</a>) and on factors associated with repeat screening examined by Clark et al. (<a id="xref-ref-6-7" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-6">6</a>). We examined 15 covariates (categorization of these variables is described earlier): age, study setting, screening interval,
study design type, data source for repeat mammography outcome, intervention strategy (classified in three ways, as described
earlier), mode of intervention delivery, number of delivery modes, control group type, use of a theoretic framework, two theoretic
constructs (barriers and stage of change), and use of tailoring (personalizing the message).
</p>
<p id="p-29">Most studies used multiple theoretic frameworks, and there were not enough studies using a given framework to form reliable
groupings. For example, only three studies used the transtheoretical model (<a id="xref-ref-37-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-37">37</a>) alone and only one study used the health belief model (<a id="xref-ref-22-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-22">22</a>) alone, the two most frequently cited models. Therefore, we classified studies in terms of whether a theoretic framework
was used (yes or no). Likewise, with only a few exceptions, very few studies measured the same theoretic constructs. Two exceptions
were the barriers construct from the health belief model (<a id="xref-ref-22-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-22">22</a>), which was measured in 13 studies, and the stage of change construct from the transtheoretical model (<a id="xref-ref-37-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-37">37</a>), which was measured in nine studies. Those were the only two theoretic constructs included in our analyses. We also identified
studies that tailored messages on the basis of one or more constructs, for example, knowledge and stage of change. We created
a variable called use of tailoring and classified studies as yes or no on that variable.
</p>
<p id="p-30">To examine the contribution of individual studies to the overall summary effect estimate, we conducted an influence analysis
(omitting one study at a time) (<a id="xref-ref-38-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-38">38</a>). The influence analysis produces a graph enabling the assessment of the influence of one study on the overall meta-analysis
summary odds ratio estimate by visually comparing summary effect estimates after the removal of each study's effect estimate
on successive turns. To assess the potential for publication bias, we performed funnel plot asymmetry tests (<a id="xref-ref-39-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-39">39</a>,<a id="xref-ref-40-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-40">40</a>). The Begg test (<a id="xref-ref-39-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-39">39</a>) is directly analogous to a visual assessment of funnel plot symmetry (ie, the dispersion of all point estimates from all
studies on a graph to form a symmetrical funnel shape), and it tests whether the Begg rank correlation between effect size
and its SE is zero. Pseudo confidence intervals are the points connected by the diagonal lines forming the “funnel” on the
funnel plot; they are the expected 95% confidence intervals for a given SE (depicted as increasing along the <em>x</em>-axis). The Egger test (<a id="xref-ref-40-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-40">40</a>) is a regression of the standardized effect size (eg, log OR/SE of log OR) against its precision (eg, 1/SE of log OR). If
the intercept of the Egger regression line differs statistically significantly from zero, publication bias may be present.
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-16" class="subsection">
<h3>Completeness of Reporting on Selected Aspects of Internal and External Validity</h3>
<p id="p-31">The importance of systematically assessing aspects of internal validity in health promotion trials has been recognized for
some time (<a id="xref-ref-41-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-41">41</a>). One aspect of internal validity that has recently been emphasized is the design and analysis of group- or cluster-randomized
trials in cancer prevention and control (<a id="xref-ref-42-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-42">42</a>). Recent attention also has been directed to the importance of assessing external validity in health promotion research,
and several frameworks for assessing it have been proposed (<a id="xref-ref-43-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-43">43</a>,<a id="xref-ref-44-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-44">44</a>). We assessed studies for completeness of reporting on aspects of internal and external validity related to representativeness
of the study population and to design and analysis issues. To assess representativeness, we recorded whether or not authors
provided information on the response rate at baseline, comparison of respondents and nonrespondents at baseline, equivalence
of study groups at baseline, response rate at follow-up, comparison of the final sample to dropouts, and whether there was
differential attrition by study group. To assess design and analysis issues, we recorded whether the authors provided information
on how the sample size was determined (ie, a priori statistical power analysis), whether an intent-to-treat analysis was performed,
the unit of randomization, and, for group-randomized trials, whether the outcome analysis was adjusted for nested data.
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section results" id="sec-17">
<div class="section-nav"><a href="#sec-11" title="Methods" class="prev-section-link"><span>Previous Section</span></a><a href="#sec-21" title="Discussion" class="next-section-link"><span>Next Section</span></a></div>
<h2>Results</h2>
<p id="p-32">We identified 319 unique articles that matched our search criteria. Of the 319 articles reviewed for eligibility, 165 studies
were excluded because they were not intervention studies (<a id="xref-fig-1-1" class="xref-fig" href="#F1">Figure 1</a>). Of the 153 intervention studies, 39 reported repeat mammography outcomes. Thirteen of the 39 were excluded because the
study design (<a id="xref-ref-45-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-45">45</a>–<a id="xref-ref-49-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-49">49</a>), analysis or reporting (<a id="xref-ref-50-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-50">50</a>–<a id="xref-ref-55-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-55">55</a>), or study sample (<a id="xref-ref-56-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-56">56</a>,<a id="xref-ref-57-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-57">57</a>) could not be directly compared with the other repeat mammography studies. In one study that stratified results by family
history of breast cancer (<a id="xref-ref-23-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-23">23</a>), we extracted data only for the group of women without a family history because our focus was on women at average risk.
We reached consensus that 25 studies (26 articles) were eligible for review (<a id="xref-fig-1-2" class="xref-fig" href="#F1">Figure 1</a>).
</p>
<div id="F1" class="fig pos-float odd">
<div class="fig-inline"><a href="1023/F1.expansion.html"><img alt="Figure 1" src="1023/F1.small.gif" /></a><div class="callout"><span>View larger version:</span><ul class="callout-links">
<li><a href="1023/F1.expansion.html">In this window</a></li>
<li><a class="in-nw" href="1023/F1.expansion.html">In a new window</a></li>
</ul>
<ul class="fig-services">
<li class="ppt-link"><a href="/powerpoint/102/14/1023/F1">Download as PowerPoint Slide</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div class="fig-caption"><span class="fig-label">Figure 1</span>
<p id="p-33" class="first-child">Literature search results and review process of publications by exclusionary criteria. The category “other” under excluded
nonintervention studies includes measurement, risk assessment models, perceptions and knowledge, breast self-examinations,
abnormal mammography results and postmammogram psychological reactions (eg, anxiety, worry), patient satisfaction, and genetic
screening.
</p>
<div class="sb-div caption-clear"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="sec-18" class="subsection">
<h3>Description of Eligible Studies</h3>
<p id="p-34"><strong><em>Study population and setting.</em></strong>Most studies were conducted in the mid-to-late 1990s or later; four did not report when the study was conducted (<a id="xref-table-wrap-1-1" class="xref-table" href="#T1">Table 1</a>). Nine studies included women with a minimum age of 40 years, 14 with a minimum age of 50–52 years, and two with a minimum
age of 65 years. Fifteen studies imposed an upper age limit, whereas the rest did not.
</p>
<div class="table pos-float" id="T1">
<div class="table-inline">
<div class="callout"><span>View this table:</span><ul class="callout-links">
<li><a href="1023/T1.expansion.html">In this window</a></li>
<li><a class="in-nw" href="1023/T1.expansion.html">In a new window</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div class="table-caption"><span class="table-label">Table 1</span>
<p id="p-35" class="first-child">Characteristics of 25 studies of interventions to promote repeat mammography screening*</p>
<div class="sb-div caption-clear"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p id="p-39">Of the 19 studies reporting racial/ethnic composition of the study population, most studied non-Hispanic white women. Seventeen
of the 25 studies recruited women through health-care settings (health maintenance organizations, primary care practices,
outpatient clinics, or mammography facilities). Of the eight studies that recruited community residents, five used population-based
sampling strategies (<a id="xref-ref-29-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-29">29</a>,<a id="xref-ref-58-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-58">58</a>–<a id="xref-ref-61-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-61">61</a>), two recruited through the state's Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (<a id="xref-ref-62-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-62">62</a>,<a id="xref-ref-63-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-63">63</a>), and one through churches (<a id="xref-ref-64-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-64">64</a>).
</p>
<p id="p-40">Most studies recruited women with diverse mammography histories, but 11 (<a id="xref-ref-23-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-23">23</a>,<a id="xref-ref-59-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-59">59</a>,<a id="xref-ref-62-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-62">62</a>,<a id="xref-ref-63-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-63">63</a>,<a id="xref-ref-65-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-65">65</a>–<a id="xref-ref-71-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-71">71</a>) recruited only women who had an up-to-date mammogram and would become due for another one during the study period. In studies
of women with diverse mammography histories, the percentage of women with an up-to-date mammogram at study baseline (and therefore
eligible to be included in our effect size estimates) ranged from 4% (<a id="xref-ref-31-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-31">31</a>) to 72% [(<a id="xref-ref-32-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-32">32</a>), <a id="xref-table-wrap-1-2" class="xref-table" href="#T1">Table 1</a>].
</p>
<p id="p-41"><strong><em>Measurement of repeat mammography.</em></strong>Mammography adherence was assessed as annual use in 17 studies, biennial use in six studies, and age dependent (ie, biennial
for women <50 years of age and annual for women ≥50 years of age) in two studies (<a id="xref-table-wrap-1-3" class="xref-table" href="#T1">Table 1</a>). Eighteen studies used design 1, that is, they measured one pre- and one postintervention mammogram. Five studies used design
2, that is, they measured two on-schedule postintervention mammograms, and two studies reported data in a way that permitted
calculation of repeat mammography estimates for both design types. Thus, a total of 27 individual effect size estimates were
available for analysis. Thirteen of the 25 studies used some type of objective record data to measure the outcome of mammography
completion, nine used self-report, and three used a combination of records and self-report (<a id="xref-table-wrap-1-4" class="xref-table" href="#T1">Table 1</a>).
</p>
<p id="p-42"><strong><em>Description of the interventions.</em></strong>All but two studies were randomized controlled trials. Eaker et al. (<a id="xref-ref-60-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-60">60</a>) selected eight counties and designated four as intervention and four as control. Quinley et al. (<a id="xref-ref-71-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-71">71</a>) identified mammography facilities that used reminders and compared them with facilities that did not. Eight studies used
only patient reminders as the primary intervention strategy (<a id="xref-ref-23-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-23">23</a>,<a id="xref-ref-31-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-31">31</a>,<a id="xref-ref-62-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-62">62</a>,<a id="xref-ref-65-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-65">65</a>–<a id="xref-ref-67-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-67">67</a>,<a id="xref-ref-69-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-69">69</a>,<a id="xref-ref-71-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-71">71</a>), six used educational or motivational strategies (<a id="xref-ref-29-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-29">29</a>,<a id="xref-ref-59-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-59">59</a>,<a id="xref-ref-60-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-60">60</a>,<a id="xref-ref-63-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-63">63</a>,<a id="xref-ref-70-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-70">70</a>,<a id="xref-ref-72-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-72">72</a>), and 11 (<a id="xref-ref-32-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-32">32</a>,<a id="xref-ref-58-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-58">58</a>,<a id="xref-ref-61-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-61">61</a>,<a id="xref-ref-64-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-64">64</a>,<a id="xref-ref-68-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-68">68</a>,<a id="xref-ref-73-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-73">73</a>–<a id="xref-ref-78-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-78">78</a>) involved in-person or telephone counseling (<a id="xref-table-wrap-1-5" class="xref-table" href="#T1">Table 1</a>). The one study (<a id="xref-ref-73-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-73">73</a>) that used lay health advisors or navigators was grouped with the counseling interventions for subsequent analysis because
their role was to educate women about breast cancer and screening and to assist women in scheduling and completing a mammogram.
Variability existed within intervention strategy. For example, reminders to complete a mammogram varied by source (ie, facility
or personal physician), tailoring or framing of the message, and timing. About half of the 25 studies used multiple intervention
strategies, and eight (<a id="xref-ref-32-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-32">32</a>,<a id="xref-ref-58-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-58">58</a>,<a id="xref-ref-61-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-61">61</a>,<a id="xref-ref-68-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-68">68</a>,<a id="xref-ref-74-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-74">74</a>–<a id="xref-ref-77-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-77">77</a>) of the 11 counseling studies used some variation of barriers-specific telephone counseling. Intervention delivery mode also
varied across studies (<a id="xref-table-wrap-1-6" class="xref-table" href="#T1">Table 1</a>); nine involved only mail, three used only telephone, nine used both mail and telephone, two involved mail and in-person
contact, and two used a variety of community education strategies in addition to mail or telephone.
</p>
<p id="p-43">The number of study groups varied, with some studies using multiple intervention and comparison groups (<a id="xref-table-wrap-1-7" class="xref-table" href="#T1">Table 1</a>). Eleven studies used a survey-only control group, whereas 12 had an active control or comparison intervention group. Only
two studies included a no-contact control group.
</p>
<p id="p-44">Most studies (17 of 25) used a theoretic framework to guide the study intervention, and most studies that used a framework
used more than one (<a id="xref-table-wrap-1-8" class="xref-table" href="#T1">Table 1</a>). The most commonly used frameworks were the transtheoretical model (<a id="xref-ref-37-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-37">37</a>) and the health belief model (<a id="xref-ref-22-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-22">22</a>). The constructs most frequently used in interventions were barriers from the health belief model and stage of change from
the transtheoretical model. Twelve studies tailored intervention messages on one or more theoretic constructs (<a id="xref-ref-29-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-29">29</a>,<a id="xref-ref-32-6" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-32">32</a>,<a id="xref-ref-58-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-58">58</a>,<a id="xref-ref-61-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-61">61</a>,<a id="xref-ref-64-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-64">64</a>,<a id="xref-ref-68-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-68">68</a>,<a id="xref-ref-72-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-72">72</a>,<a id="xref-ref-74-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-74">74</a>–<a id="xref-ref-78-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-78">78</a>). Of the eight studies that did not explicitly identify a theoretic framework (<a id="xref-ref-31-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-31">31</a>,<a id="xref-ref-60-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-60">60</a>,<a id="xref-ref-62-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-62">62</a>,<a id="xref-ref-63-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-63">63</a>,<a id="xref-ref-66-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-66">66</a>,<a id="xref-ref-69-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-69">69</a>,<a id="xref-ref-71-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-71">71</a>,<a id="xref-ref-73-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-73">73</a>), all but one (<a id="xref-ref-73-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-73">73</a>) used patient reminders as at least one of the intervention strategies, an approach consistent with the cue to action construct
from the health belief model.
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-19" class="subsection">
<h3>Effect Estimates for Interventions to Increase Repeat Mammography</h3>
<p id="p-45">Across all 25 eligible studies (27 effect estimates), the test for heterogeneity was statistically significant (<em>Q</em> = 69.5, <em>I</em> <sup>2</sup> = 63%, <em>P</em> < .001; <a id="xref-table-wrap-2-1" class="xref-table" href="#T2">Table 2</a> and <a id="xref-fig-2-1" class="xref-fig" href="#F2">Figure 2</a>). When subgroups of studies were classified under each of our 15 a priori categorical covariates, nine homogeneous subgroups
were identified but only for certain categories of a covariate (<a id="xref-table-wrap-2-2" class="xref-table" href="#T2">Table 2</a>): community study setting, design 2 (ie, two postintervention mammograms), self-report data for mammography completion, the
three ways of classifying intervention strategies (use of education/motivation or counseling; use of barriers-specific telephone
counseling; and use of multiple intervention strategies), use of the stage of change construct in the intervention, and use
of tailoring. Statistically significant heterogeneity remained in all categories of the other seven covariates. With one exception,
confidence intervals overlapped when comparing odds ratios across categories within each covariate, indicating similar subgroup
effect sizes (ORs). The exception was the reminder-only intervention strategy (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.41 to 2.29, <em>P</em> < .001) compared with the education/motivation strategy (OR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.14 to 1.38, <em>P</em> = .868) (<a id="xref-table-wrap-2-3" class="xref-table" href="#T2">Table 2</a>). 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 (<em>P</em><sub>diff</sub> = .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) (<a id="xref-table-wrap-2-4" class="xref-table" href="#T2">Table 2</a>).
</p>
<div class="table pos-float" id="T2">
<div class="table-inline">
<div class="callout"><span>View this table:</span><ul class="callout-links">
<li><a href="1023/T2.expansion.html">In this window</a></li>
<li><a class="in-nw" href="1023/T2.expansion.html">In a new window</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div class="table-caption"><span class="table-label">Table 2</span>
<p id="p-46" class="first-child">Tests of heterogeneity, odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for potential explanatory variables of repeat
mammography screening*
</p>
<div class="sb-div caption-clear"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="F2" class="fig pos-float odd">
<div class="fig-inline"><a href="1023/F2.expansion.html"><img alt="Figure 2" src="1023/F2.small.gif" /></a><div class="callout"><span>View larger version:</span><ul class="callout-links">
<li><a href="1023/F2.expansion.html">In this window</a></li>
<li><a class="in-nw" href="1023/F2.expansion.html">In a new window</a></li>
</ul>
<ul class="fig-services">
<li class="ppt-link"><a href="/powerpoint/102/14/1023/F2">Download as PowerPoint Slide</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div class="fig-caption"><span class="fig-label">Figure 2</span>
<p id="p-51" class="first-child">Forest plot comparing intervention groups to control groups on repeat mammography by author. Sizes of study-specific odds
ratios (ORs) (in gray) are inversely proportional to the variance. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the overall summary
odds ratio were computed under random-effects model assumptions. Weights are from the random-effects analysis. Statistical
tests were two-sided. Control % = odds of RM compared with odds of no RM in the control group; intervention % = odds of RM
compared with odds of no RM in the intervention group; NA = not available; OR = ratio of the intervention odds to the control
odds; RM/no RM = repeat mammography/no repeat mammography.
</p>
<div class="sb-div caption-clear"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p id="p-52">Variables with more than two categories were dichotomized for the meta-regression. For screening interval, the category age
dependent, representing two studies (<a id="xref-ref-60-20" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-60">60</a>,<a id="xref-ref-73-21" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-73">73</a>), was combined with the category 1 year because the majority of women were aged 50 years or older, and 1 year is the commonly
recommended interval. For data source, the three studies (<a id="xref-ref-69-19" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-69">69</a>,<a id="xref-ref-70-18" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-70">70</a>,<a id="xref-ref-73-22" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-73">73</a>) that used a combination of self-report and medical records were combined with studies using medical records. For control
group type, the two studies (<a id="xref-ref-66-18" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-66">66</a>,<a id="xref-ref-71-21" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-71">71</a>) that used a no-contact control group were combined with the survey-only category. For intervention strategy, the categories
education/motivation and counseling were combined because their odds ratios were the same. Delivery mode was dichotomized
as mail only vs other modes. In meta-regression modeling that included all 27 estimates, the only statistically significant
predictor of the magnitude of the odds ratios was the intervention strategy of reminder only vs education/motivation and counseling
combined as the referent (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.68, <em>P</em> = .011). However, the overall <em>I</em> <sup>2</sup> value for this model remained 60.6%, indicating substantial residual heterogeneity and confirming the results of the heterogeneity
analyses in <a id="xref-table-wrap-2-5" class="xref-table" href="#T2">Table 2</a> for the studies using reminder-only interventions.
</p>
<p id="p-53">In the influence analysis that included all 27 estimates, omitting the Mayer et al. (<a id="xref-ref-67-18" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-67">67</a>) reminder-only study had the most pronounced effect (<em>I</em><sup>2</sup> changed from 62.2% to 57.7%) but only slightly decreased the summary odds ratio estimate (from 1.39 to 1.35). In a separate
influence analysis restricted to the eight reminder-only intervention studies that remained heterogeneous (<a id="xref-ref-23-21" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-23">23</a>,<a id="xref-ref-31-21" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-31">31</a>,<a id="xref-ref-62-21" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-62">62</a>,<a id="xref-ref-65-19" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-65">65</a>–<a id="xref-ref-67-19" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-67">67</a>,<a id="xref-ref-69-20" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-69">69</a>,<a id="xref-ref-71-22" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-71">71</a>), omitting Quinley et al. (<a id="xref-ref-71-23" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-71">71</a>) substantially increased the summary odds ratio (from 1.79 to 1.93). Neither the funnel plot pattern (<a id="xref-fig-3-1" class="xref-fig" href="#F3">Figure 3</a>) nor the results from the asymmetry hypothesis tests (Begg test: <em>P</em> = .17; Egger test: <em>P</em> = .54) suggested evidence of publication bias.
</p>
<div id="F3" class="fig pos-float odd">
<div class="fig-inline"><a href="1023/F3.expansion.html"><img alt="Figure 3" src="1023/F3.small.gif" /></a><div class="callout"><span>View larger version:</span><ul class="callout-links">
<li><a href="1023/F3.expansion.html">In this window</a></li>
<li><a class="in-nw" href="1023/F3.expansion.html">In a new window</a></li>
</ul>
<ul class="fig-services">
<li class="ppt-link"><a href="/powerpoint/102/14/1023/F3">Download as PowerPoint Slide</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div class="fig-caption"><span class="fig-label">Figure 3</span>
<p id="p-54" class="first-child">Begg funnel plot of all studies. The Begg test (<a id="xref-ref-39-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-39">39</a>) is a measure of publication bias and tests whether the Begg rank correlation between effect size and its SE is zero. Pseudo
confidence intervals are the <strong>points</strong> connected by the <strong>diagonal lines</strong> forming the “funnel” on the funnel plot; they are the expected 95% confidence intervals for a given SE (depicted as increasing
along the <em>x</em>-axis).
</p>
<div class="sb-div caption-clear"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="sec-20" class="subsection">
<h3>Completeness of Reporting on Selected Aspects of Internal and External Validity</h3>
<p id="p-55">Nonresponse at baseline was not an issue for the nine studies (<a id="xref-ref-23-22" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-23">23</a>,<a id="xref-ref-31-22" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-31">31</a>,<a id="xref-ref-59-19" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-59">59</a>,<a id="xref-ref-62-22" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-62">62</a>,<a id="xref-ref-63-21" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-63">63</a>,<a id="xref-ref-65-20" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-65">65</a>,<a id="xref-ref-66-19" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-66">66</a>,<a id="xref-ref-69-21" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-69">69</a>,<a id="xref-ref-71-24" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-71">71</a>) that used records to identify and track the study sample for outcome measurement (<a id="xref-table-wrap-3-1" class="xref-table" href="#T3">Table 3</a>). For the other 16 studies, all but one (<a id="xref-ref-64-20" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-64">64</a>) reported the response rate at baseline; however, of these 16 studies, only two (<a id="xref-ref-29-21" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-29">29</a>,<a id="xref-ref-74-19" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-74">74</a>) compared characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents at baseline. Nineteen of the 25 studies tested for equivalence
of study groups at baseline on selected variables (<a id="xref-table-wrap-3-2" class="xref-table" href="#T3">Table 3</a>). Fifteen of the 16 studies that actively recruited participants (as opposed to tracking them passively through medical records
or administrative databases) reported response rates at follow-up; however, only four (<a id="xref-ref-28-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-28">28</a>,<a id="xref-ref-58-21" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-58">58</a>,<a id="xref-ref-75-33" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-75">75</a>,<a id="xref-ref-76-17" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-76">76</a>) compared the final sample with dropouts. Only eight studies that should have tested for differential attrition across study
groups did so (<a id="xref-table-wrap-3-3" class="xref-table" href="#T3">Table 3</a>).
</p>
<div class="table pos-float" id="T3">
<div class="table-inline">
<div class="callout"><span>View this table:</span><ul class="callout-links">
<li><a href="1023/T3.expansion.html">In this window</a></li>
<li><a class="in-nw" href="1023/T3.expansion.html">In a new window</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div class="table-caption"><span class="table-label">Table 3</span>
<p id="p-56" class="first-child">Completeness of reporting on selected aspects of internal and external validity*</p>
<div class="sb-div caption-clear"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p id="p-60">Only six studies reported how the sample size for the intervention trial was determined, and only 11 studies conducted intent-to-treat
analyses (<a id="xref-table-wrap-3-4" class="xref-table" href="#T3">Table 3</a>), defined as including everyone who was randomized to an intervention or control group (<a id="xref-ref-79-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-79">79</a>). Of the four group-level, randomized trials (<a id="xref-ref-61-22" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-61">61</a>,<a id="xref-ref-64-22" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-64">64</a>,<a id="xref-ref-74-21" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-74">74</a>,<a id="xref-ref-75-35" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-75">75</a>), all described analyses intended to adjust for the design effect; however, neither of the two group-level, nonrandomized
trials (<a id="xref-ref-60-24" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-60">60</a>,<a id="xref-ref-71-28" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-71">71</a>) adjusted for the effect of nested samples. Two of the studies (<a id="xref-ref-67-21" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-67">67</a>,<a id="xref-ref-76-19" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-76">76</a>) that identified individuals as the unit of randomization and analysis could have but did not report the intraclass correlation
or magnitude of the design effect to describe the possible influence of patients nested within providers or facilities.
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section discussion" id="sec-21">
<div class="section-nav"><a href="#sec-17" title="Results" class="prev-section-link"><span>Previous Section</span></a><a href="#sec-22" title="Funding" class="next-section-link"><span>Next Section</span></a></div>
<h2>Discussion</h2>
<p id="p-61">We observed statistically significant heterogeneity (<em>P</em> < .001) among the effect size estimates (ORs) in the 25 studies (27 estimates), indicating variability in effect estimates
of repeat mammography rates. Of the 15 categorical covariates identified a priori as study characteristics that may influence
effect size, no single covariate resolved the heterogeneity in univariate analyses. In multivariable meta-regression, only
the intervention strategy of reminders vs the combined categories of education/motivation and counseling remained a statistically
significant predictor of the magnitude of the intervention effect as measured by the odds ratio; however, substantial residual
heterogeneity persisted in the model. The summary odds ratio for the eight heterogeneous studies using reminders was the largest
observed (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.41 to 2.29 computed under a random-effects model) and was statistically significantly (<em>P</em><sub>diff</sub> = .008) greater than the summary odds ratio 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) regardless of whether it was computed under a fixed-
or random-effects model. It is important to note that the eight studies using reminders showed statistically significant heterogeneity
despite the notoriously low statistical power of homogeneity testing (<a id="xref-ref-80-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-80">80</a>). Moreover, all eight studies were alike in terms of using medical records or administrative data to ascertain mammography
status using design 1 (one pre- and one postintervention mammogram) and, except for one study, being conducted within a health-care
setting. The results of the influence analyses confirmed that the observed heterogeneity was mostly attributable to one or
two of the studies using reminders (<a id="xref-ref-65-22" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-65">65</a>,<a id="xref-ref-67-22" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-67">67</a>). Because of this heterogeneity, we cannot conclude that the use of a reminder intervention strategy within a health-care
setting is more effective than alternate intervention strategies in the same or different study settings. Therefore, additional
studies are needed to help resolve the remaining heterogeneity in this subgroup by identifying the explanatory study characteristics
or research methodologies that are the key factors in increasing repeat mammography.
</p>
<p id="p-62">The 17 studies that used education/motivation or counseling were remarkably homogeneous in their effect sizes with a narrow
confidence interval, suggesting a high degree of consistency among the studies and that the true intervention effect of these
strategies may be, at best, moderate, that is, odds ratios between 1.18 and 1.36. The results of the meta-regression modeling
further suggest that, among these homogeneous studies, there was no detectable advantage or disadvantage in the different
study designs, methods, settings, populations, intervention strategies, delivery modes, outcome measurements, screening intervals,
or use of theory. This finding raises a question as to whether substantial increases in regular mammography screening can
be expected from education/motivation or counseling interventions, regardless of how intensive, rigorous, innovative, or expensive
the approach. In other words, changes in regular mammography screening behavior may not be particularly sensitive to variations
in education/motivation or counseling interventions. In the current US environment, substantial increases in regular cancer
screening behavior may depend more on factors at the systems level (eg, regulations relating to health-care access such as
insurance coverage and standards of preventive care) than on factors at the individual level such as perceived risk of breast
cancer.
</p>
<p id="p-63">Our finding of a relatively modest intervention effect for the subgroup of more intensive intervention studies is consistent
with the finding in a meta-analysis (<a id="xref-ref-16-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-16">16</a>) that was restricted to tailored interventions and that focused on one-time mammography screening. Sohl and Moyer (<a id="xref-ref-16-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-16">16</a>) found that interventions promoting repeat mammography had a smaller effect size (OR = 1.17) compared with those promoting
one-time use (OR = 1.53). As discussed previously, however, we cannot conclude that lower intensity interventions such as
reminders are a better strategy without additional research to determine whether a particular type of reminder strategy is
effective across different study settings, populations, and study methodologies.
</p>
<p id="p-64">An unexpected finding was that there were two types of study designs used in repeat mammography interventions. In design 1,
women who had had a recent preintervention mammogram at study baseline were followed long enough to complete one on-schedule
mammogram during the study period. In design 2, women with diverse mammography histories at study baseline were followed long
enough to complete two on-schedule mammograms during the study period. In design 2 studies, women who were overdue or had
never been screened may have been more resistant to attempts to get them to complete screening. Although the confidence intervals
overlapped, the odds ratio for design 2 studies was smaller compared with design 1 studies, suggesting that women who were
not overdue at study baseline were more likely to complete another mammogram on schedule compared with a group of women that
included some who were overdue. Future studies should consider how mammography history may affect receptivity to different
types of interventions (<a id="xref-ref-81-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-81">81</a>). For example, if a woman experiences the procedure as painful, she may be unwilling to return for her next mammogram when
it is due and may disregard reminders or messages promoting mammography.
</p>
<p id="p-65">There is no consensus about how to classify types of intervention strategies. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of one-time
mammography screening have used a number of different classifications (<a id="xref-ref-7-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-7">7</a>–<a id="xref-ref-19-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-19">19</a>). The lack of consistency may result, in part, from lack of consensus about how to operationalize our theoretic frameworks
and constructs (<a id="xref-ref-24-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-24">24</a>). In addition, many of the interventions reviewed here were complex, multicomponent interventions and, therefore, difficult
to classify. For these reasons, we explored three approaches to classifying intervention strategies. None of these approaches
yielded homogeneous subgroups across all categories of a variable, and, with the possible exception of reminders, the effect
sizes were generally similar.
</p>
<p id="p-66">In our assessment of the quality of reporting for eight characteristics of internal validity, most studies tested for equivalence
of study groups at baseline and reported the response rate at follow-up (<a id="xref-table-wrap-3-5" class="xref-table" href="#T3">Table 3</a>). Fewer studies reported whether they compared the characteristics of participants who remained in the study with those who
dropped out, and even fewer reported whether there was differential attrition by study group (<a id="xref-table-wrap-3-6" class="xref-table" href="#T3">Table 3</a>). Only 11 studies conducted an intention-to-treat analysis, so it is likely that the effect sizes were overestimated because
data on other cancer screening behaviors suggest that dropouts are less likely to complete screening tests (<a id="xref-ref-82-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-82">82</a>–<a id="xref-ref-84-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-84">84</a>). There was far less attention to reporting study characteristics that affect external validity such as the representativeness
of participants and settings. As noted by Steckler and McElroy (<a id="xref-ref-85-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-85">85</a>), “Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are limited in the conclusions that can be drawn when external validity data are
not reported.” This limitation needs to be addressed if we are to successfully disseminate effective interventions. Application
of frameworks to address internal (<a id="xref-ref-41-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-41">41</a>,<a id="xref-ref-86-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-86">86</a>) and external (<a id="xref-ref-44-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-44">44</a>,<a id="xref-ref-87-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-87">87</a>) validity in the implementation and evaluation of interventions will enable us to learn from our successes as well as our
failures.
</p>
<p id="p-67">A limitation of our systematic review is that several of the studies reviewed here were not explicitly designed to promote
repeat mammography, although they provided data that allowed us to calculate effect estimates. It may be that had their interventions
been designed to address repeat mammography in addition to one-time mammography, the effect estimates in those studies would
have been different. Although there is an extensive body of intervention research on one-time mammography screening, the number
of intervention studies of repeat mammography is comparatively small, and estimates in some categories of the predictor variables
were unstable. In addition, most of the studies were conducted more than 10 years ago, and most were of non-Hispanic white
women, thus limiting our ability to generalize the findings to the present day and to other ethnic groups.
</p>
<p id="p-68">If we are to reap the benefits of mortality reduction from mammography screening, we need a better understanding of the determinants
of repeat screening behavior so that we can develop more effective interventions. This review called attention to a number
of characteristics in the studies to date, which, if attended to in future studies, will increase our understanding of how
to develop and implement interventions to increase regular mammography screening. Because reporting standards are increasingly
being adopted by journal editors, it will be easier to synthesize the literature and draw conclusions about what works, under
what circumstances, and for what reasons.
</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="sec-22">
<div class="section-nav"><a href="#sec-21" title="Discussion" class="prev-section-link"><span>Previous Section</span></a><a href="#fn-group-1" title="Footnotes" class="next-section-link"><span>Next Section</span></a></div>
<h2>Funding</h2>
<p id="p-69">National Cancer Institute (NCI)/National Institutes of Health (RO1-CA-76330 to S.W.V., D.J.d.J., and J.A.T.); NCI (RO3-CA-103512
to D.J.d.J. and S.W.V.); UL1 (RR024148—CTSA to D.J.d.J.); NCI (R25-CA-57712 to A.M.); American Cancer Society Mentored Research
Scholar Grant (CPPB-113777 to A.M.).
</p>
</div>
<div class="section fn-group" id="fn-group-1">
<div class="section-nav"><a href="#sec-22" title="Funding" class="prev-section-link"><span>Previous Section</span></a><a href="#ref-list-1" title="References" class="next-section-link"><span>Next Section</span></a></div>
<h2>Footnotes</h2>
<ul>
<li class="fn" id="fn-11">
<p id="p-70">The funders did not have any involvement in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data;
the writing of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
</p>
</li>
<li class="fn" id="fn-12">
<p id="p-71">The authors thank Sharon Coan for her assistance with data analysis.</p>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<ul class="copyright-statement">
<li class="fn" id="copyright-statement-1">© The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press.</li>
</ul>
<div class="section ref-list" id="ref-list-1">
<div class="section-nav"><a href="#fn-group-1" title="Footnotes" class="prev-section-link"><span>Previous Section</span></a><div class="nav-placeholder"> </div>
</div>
<h2>References</h2>
<ol class="cit-list ref-use-labels">
<li><span class="ref-label">1.</span><a class="rev-xref-ref" href="#xref-ref-1-1" title="View reference 1. in text"
id="ref-1">↵</a><div class="cit ref-cit ref-journal" id="cit-102.14.1023.1"
data-doi="10.3322/CA.2007.0010">
<div class="cit-metadata">
<ol class="cit-auth-list">
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Jemal</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">A</span></span>,
</li>
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Siegel</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">R</span></span>,
</li>
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Ward</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">E</span></span>,
</li>
<li><span class="cit-etal">et al</span></li>
</ol><cite>. <span class="cit-article-title">Cancer statistics</span>. <abbr class="cit-jnl-abbrev">CA Cancer J Clin</abbr> <span class="cit-pub-date">2008</span>;<span class="cit-vol">58</span>(<span class="cit-issue">2</span>):<span class="cit-fpage">71</span>-<span class="cit-lpage">96</span>.</cite></div>
<div class="cit-extra"><a href="/external-ref?access_num=10.3322/CA.2007.0010&link_type=DOI"
class="cit-ref-sprinkles cit-ref-sprinkles-webofscience">CrossRef</a><a href="/external-ref?access_num=18287387&link_type=MED"
class="cit-ref-sprinkles cit-ref-sprinkles-medline">Medline</a><a href="/external-ref?access_num=000253677800003&link_type=ISI"
class="cit-ref-sprinkles cit-ref-sprinkles-webofscience">Web of Science</a><a target="_blank"
href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Cancer%20statistics&author=A%20Jemal&author=R%20Siegel&author=E%20Ward&publication_year=2008&journal=CA%20Cancer%20J%20Clin&volume=58&issue=2&pages=71-96">Google Scholar</a></div>
</div>
</li>
<li><span class="ref-label">2.</span><a class="rev-xref-ref" href="#xref-ref-2-1" title="View reference 2. in text"
id="ref-2">↵</a><div class="cit ref-cit ref-journal" id="cit-102.14.1023.2"
data-doi="10.1001/jama.1995.03520260071035">
<div class="cit-metadata">
<ol class="cit-auth-list">
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Kerlikowske</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">K</span></span>,
</li>
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Grady</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">D</span></span>,
</li>
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Rubin</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">SM</span></span>,
</li>
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Sandrock</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">C</span></span>,
</li>
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Ernster</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">VL</span></span></li>
</ol><cite>. <span class="cit-article-title">Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis</span>. <abbr class="cit-jnl-abbrev">JAMA</abbr> <span class="cit-pub-date">1995</span>;<span class="cit-vol">273</span>(<span class="cit-issue">2</span>):<span class="cit-fpage">149</span>-<span class="cit-lpage">154</span>.</cite></div>
<div class="cit-extra"><a href="/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.1995.03520260071035&link_type=DOI"
class="cit-ref-sprinkles cit-ref-sprinkles-webofscience">CrossRef</a><a href="/external-ref?access_num=7799496&link_type=MED"
class="cit-ref-sprinkles cit-ref-sprinkles-medline">Medline</a><a href="/external-ref?access_num=A1995PZ68700029&link_type=ISI"
class="cit-ref-sprinkles cit-ref-sprinkles-webofscience">Web of Science</a><a target="_blank"
href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Efficacy%20of%20screening%20mammography%3A%20a%20meta-analysis&author=K%20Kerlikowske&author=D%20Grady&author=SM%20Rubin&author=C%20Sandrock&author=VL%20Ernster&publication_year=1995&journal=JAMA&volume=273&issue=2&pages=149-154">Google Scholar</a></div>
</div>
</li>
<li><span class="ref-label">3.</span><a class="rev-xref-ref" href="#xref-ref-3-1" title="View reference 3. in text"
id="ref-3">↵</a><div class="cit ref-cit ref-journal" id="cit-102.14.1023.3">
<div class="cit-metadata"><cite><span class="cit-auth cit-collab">U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)</span>. <span class="cit-article-title"><em>Screening for Breast Cancer. Recommendations and Rationale</em>. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department Health and Human Services</span>. <span class="cit-pub-date">2002</span>. <span class="cit-comment"><a href="http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm">http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm</a>. Accessed May 11, 2009</span>.</cite></div>
<div class="cit-extra"></div>
</div>
</li>
<li><span class="ref-label">4.</span><a class="rev-xref-ref" href="#xref-ref-4-1" title="View reference 4. in text"
id="ref-4">↵</a><div class="cit ref-cit ref-journal" id="cit-102.14.1023.4"
data-doi="10.1002/cncr.11208">
<div class="cit-metadata">
<ol class="cit-auth-list">
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Swan</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">J</span></span>,
</li>
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Breen</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">NL</span></span>,
</li>
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Coates</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">RJ</span></span>,
</li>
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Rimer</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">BK</span></span>,
</li>
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Lee</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">NC</span></span></li>
</ol><cite>. <span class="cit-article-title">Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States: results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey</span>. <abbr class="cit-jnl-abbrev">Cancer</abbr> <span class="cit-pub-date">2003</span>;<span class="cit-vol">97</span>(<span class="cit-issue">6</span>):<span class="cit-fpage">1528</span>-<span class="cit-lpage">1540</span>.</cite></div>
<div class="cit-extra"><a href="/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/cncr.11208&link_type=DOI"
class="cit-ref-sprinkles cit-ref-sprinkles-webofscience">CrossRef</a><a href="/external-ref?access_num=12627518&link_type=MED"
class="cit-ref-sprinkles cit-ref-sprinkles-medline">Medline</a><a href="/external-ref?access_num=000181361900020&link_type=ISI"
class="cit-ref-sprinkles cit-ref-sprinkles-webofscience">Web of Science</a><a target="_blank"
href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Progress%20in%20cancer%20screening%20practices%20in%20the%20United%20States%3A%20results%20from%20the%202000%20National%20Health%20Interview%20Survey&author=J%20Swan&author=NL%20Breen&author=RJ%20Coates&author=BK%20Rimer&author=NC%20Lee&publication_year=2003&journal=Cancer&volume=97&issue=6&pages=1528-1540">Google Scholar</a></div>
</div>
</li>
<li><span class="ref-label">5.</span><a class="rev-xref-ref" href="#xref-ref-5-1" title="View reference 5. in text"
id="ref-5">↵</a><div class="cit ref-cit ref-journal" id="cit-102.14.1023.5"
data-doi="10.1002/cncr.22723">
<div class="cit-metadata">
<ol class="cit-auth-list">
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Breen</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">N</span></span>,
</li>
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Cronin</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">KA</span></span>,
</li>
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Meissner</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">HI</span></span>,
</li>
<li><span class="cit-etal">et al</span></li>
</ol><cite>. <span class="cit-article-title">Reported drop in mammography: is this cause for concern</span>. <abbr class="cit-jnl-abbrev">Cancer</abbr> <span class="cit-pub-date">2007</span>;<span class="cit-vol">109</span>(<span class="cit-issue">12</span>):<span class="cit-fpage">2405</span>-<span class="cit-lpage">2409</span>.</cite></div>
<div class="cit-extra"><a href="/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/cncr.22723&link_type=DOI"
class="cit-ref-sprinkles cit-ref-sprinkles-webofscience">CrossRef</a><a href="/external-ref?access_num=17503429&link_type=MED"
class="cit-ref-sprinkles cit-ref-sprinkles-medline">Medline</a><a href="/external-ref?access_num=000247113500003&link_type=ISI"
class="cit-ref-sprinkles cit-ref-sprinkles-webofscience">Web of Science</a><a target="_blank"
href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Reported%20drop%20in%20mammography%3A%20is%20this%20cause%20for%20concern&author=N%20Breen&author=KA%20Cronin&author=HI%20Meissner&publication_year=2007&journal=Cancer&volume=109&issue=12&pages=2405-2409">Google Scholar</a></div>
</div>
</li>
<li><span class="ref-label">6.</span><a class="rev-xref-ref" href="#xref-ref-6-1" title="View reference 6. in text"
id="ref-6">↵</a><div class="cit ref-cit ref-journal" id="cit-102.14.1023.6"
data-doi="10.1207/S15324796ABM2603_05">
<div class="cit-metadata">
<ol class="cit-auth-list">
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Clark</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">MA</span></span>,
</li>
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Rakowski</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">W</span></span>,
</li>
<li><span class="cit-auth"><span class="cit-name-surname">Bonacore</span> <span class="cit-name-given-names">LB</span></span></li>
</ol><cite>. <span class="cit-article-title">Repeat mammography: prevalence estimates and considerations for assessment</span>. <abbr class="cit-jnl-abbrev">Ann Behav Med</abbr> <span class="cit-pub-date">2003</span>;<span class="cit-vol">26</span>(<span class="cit-issue">3</span>):<span class="cit-fpage">201</span>-<span class="cit-lpage">211</span>.</cite></div>