Bankhead C, Richards S H, Peters T J, Sharp D J, Hobbs F D, Brown J, Roberts L, Tydeman C, Redman V, Formby J, Wilson S, Austoker J
CRC Primary Care Education Research Group, University of Oxford, Institute of Health Sciences, Headington, UK.
J Med Screen. 2001;8(2):99-105. doi: 10.1136/jms.8.2.99.
To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two primary care based interventions aimed at increasing breast screening uptake for women who had recently failed to attend.
13 General practices with low uptake in the second round of breast screening (below 60%) in north west London and the West Midlands, United Kingdom. Participants were women in these practices who were recent non-attenders for breast screening in the third round.
Pragmatic factorial randomised controlled trial, with people randomised to a systematic intervention (general practitioner letter), an opportunistic intervention (flag in women's notes prompting discussion by health professionals), neither intervention, or both. Outcome measures were attendance for screening 6 months after randomisation and cost-effectiveness of the interventions.
1,158 Women were individually randomised as follows: 289 control; 291 letter; 290 flag; 288 both interventions. Attendance was ascertained for 1,148 (99%) of the 1,158 women. Logistic regression adjusting for the other intervention and practice produced an odds ratio (OR) for attendance of 1.51 (95% confidence interval (95% CI 1.02 to 2.26; p=0.04) for the letter, and 1.39 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.10) for the flag. Health service costs/ additional attendance were 35 pounds (letter) and 65 pounds (flag).
Among recent non-attenders, the letter was effective in increasing breast screening attendance. The flag was of equivocal effectiveness and was considerably less cost-effective than the letter.
研究两种基于初级保健的干预措施对提高近期未参加乳腺筛查女性的筛查率的有效性和成本效益。
在英国伦敦西北部和西米德兰兹郡第二轮乳腺筛查中接受率较低(低于60%)的13家全科诊所。参与者为这些诊所中第三轮乳腺筛查的近期未参加者。
实用析因随机对照试验,将参与者随机分为接受系统干预(全科医生信件)、机会性干预(在女性病历中标记以促使卫生专业人员进行讨论)、不接受任何干预或接受两种干预。观察指标为随机分组后6个月的筛查参加情况及干预措施的成本效益。
1158名女性被单独随机分组如下:289名作为对照;291名接受信件干预;290名接受标记干预;288名接受两种干预。1158名女性中有1148名(99%)的参加情况得以确定。经对其他干预措施和诊所进行逻辑回归调整后,信件干预组的参加率优势比(OR)为1.51(95%置信区间(95%CI)为1.02至2.26;p = 0.04),标记干预组的OR为1.39(95%CI为0.93至2.07;p = 0.10)。卫生服务成本/额外参加筛查的人数分别为信件干预35英镑,标记干预65英镑。
在近期未参加者中,信件干预有效地提高了乳腺筛查的参加率。标记干预效果不明确,且成本效益远低于信件干预。