4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Tailored interventions to promote mammography screening: A meta-analytic review

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 45, Issue 4, Pages 252-261

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.06.009

Keywords

behavioral medicine; mammography; intervention studies; prevention and control; breast cancer

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA100810-03, R01 CA100810] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To evaluate the effectiveness of tailored interventions, designed to reach one specific person based on her unique characteristics, for promoting mammography use. Method. This systematic review used meta-analytic techniques to aggregate the effect size of 28 studies published from 1997 through 2005. Potential study-level moderators of outcomes (sample, intervention, and methodological characteristics) were also examined. Results. A small but significant aggregate odds ratio effect size of 1.42 indicated that women exposed to tailored interventions were significantly more likely to get a mammogram (p<0.001). The type of population recruited and participants' pre-intervention level of mammography adherence did not significantly influence this effect. Tailored interventions that used the Health Belief Model and included a physician recommendation produced the strongest effects. Interventions delivered in person, by telephone, or in print were similarly effective. Finally, defining adherence as a single recent mammogram as opposed to regular or repeated mammograms yielded higher effect sizes. Conclusion. Tailored interventions, particularly those that employ the Health Belief Model and use a physician recommendation, are effective in promoting mammography screening. Future investigations should strive to use more standardized definitions of tailoring and assessments of mammography outcomes. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available