Sharp D J, Peters T J, Bartholomew J, Shaw A
Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol.
J Epidemiol Community Health. 1996 Feb;50(1):72-6. doi: 10.1136/jech.50.1.72.
To determine the relative effectiveness of three interventions designed to increase the uptake of breast screening.
Randomised controlled trial of a nurse visit with health education (group A), nurse visit without health education (group B), and GP letter (group C).
The area of south east London served by the Butterfly Walk Breast Screening Unit in Camberwell.
Women aged between 50 and 64 years who were registered with 27 GPs in the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham family health services authority and who had not attended for first round screening.
Altogether 799 women were randomly allocated to the three groups. In general, delivering the nurse based interventions proved difficult. In group A, 11.4% (95% CI 7.9, 14.9%) of women subsequently attended for screening compared with 7.8% (95% CI 5.1, 11.4%) in group B and 13.1% (95% CI 7.9, 18.4%) in group C. The differences between the groups (95% CIs) were not statistically significant: A versus C, -1.7% (-8.0, +4.6%); B versus C, -5.3% (-11.3, +0.7%); A versus B, +3.6% (-1.0, +8.2%).
A personal letter from the GP seems to be at least as effective at increasing the uptake of breast screening in non-attenders as a nurse making a home visit to discuss the issue of breast screening, and is not noticeably less effective than a visit at which a health education intervention is delivered. It is possible that the GP letter is considerably more effective than either of the two interview-based interventions. With regard to implementing strategies which will increase breast screening uptake and are cost effective, further trials of similar minimal interventions in primary care are required.
确定旨在提高乳腺癌筛查接受率的三种干预措施的相对有效性。
对护士进行健康教育访视(A组)、护士不进行健康教育访视(B组)和全科医生信函(C组)的随机对照试验。
坎伯韦尔蝴蝶漫步乳腺癌筛查单位服务的伦敦东南部地区。
年龄在50至64岁之间、在兰贝斯、南华克和刘易舍姆家庭健康服务管理局的27家全科医生诊所注册且未参加首轮筛查的女性。
总共799名女性被随机分配到三组。总体而言,实施基于护士的干预措施存在困难。A组中,随后参加筛查的女性为11.4%(95%可信区间7.9%,14.9%),B组为7.8%(95%可信区间5.1%,11.4%),C组为13.1%(95%可信区间7.9%,18.4%)。各组之间的差异(95%可信区间)无统计学意义:A组与C组相比,为-1.7%(-8.0%,+4.6%);B组与C组相比,为-5.3%(-11.3%,+0.7%);A组与B组相比,为+3.6%(-1.0%,+8.2%)。
全科医生发出的私人信函在提高未参加者的乳腺癌筛查接受率方面似乎至少与护士进行家访讨论乳腺癌筛查问题一样有效,且明显不比进行健康教育干预的家访效果差。全科医生信函有可能比两种基于面谈的干预措施中的任何一种都有效得多。关于实施能够提高乳腺癌筛查接受率且具有成本效益的策略,需要在初级保健中对类似的最小化干预措施进行进一步试验。