Erschienen in:
01.04.2014 | Original Research
Improving Mammography Screening Among the Medically Underserved
verfasst von:
Terry C. Davis, PhD, Alfred Rademaker, PhD, Charles L. Bennett, MD, PhD, MPH, Michael S. Wolf, PhD, MPH, Edson Carias, BS, Cristalyn Reynolds, MA, Dachao Liu, MS, Connie L. Arnold, PhD
Erschienen in:
Journal of General Internal Medicine
|
Ausgabe 4/2014
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions designed to promote mammography in safety-net settings.
METHODS
A three-arm, quasi-experimental evaluation was conducted among eight federally qualified health clinics in predominately rural Louisiana. Mammography screening efforts included: 1) enhanced care, 2) health literacy-informed education of patients, and 3) education plus nurse support. Outcomes included mammography screening completion within 6 months and incremental cost-effectiveness.
RESULTS
Overall, 1,181 female patients ages 40 and over who were eligible for routine mammography were recruited. Baseline screening rates were < 10 %. Post intervention screening rates were 55.7 % with enhanced care, 51.8 % with health literacy-informed education and 65.8 % with education and nurse support. After adjusting for race, marital status, self-efficacy and literacy, patients receiving health-literacy informed education were not more likely to complete mammographic screening than those receiving enhanced care; those additionally receiving nurse support were 1.37-fold more likely to complete mammographic screening than those receiving the brief education (95 % Confidence Interval 1.08–1.74, p = 0.01). The incremental cost per additional women screened was $2,457 for literacy-informed education with nurse support over literacy-informed education alone.
CONCLUSIONS
Mammography rates were increased substantially over existing baseline rates in all three arms with the educational initiative, with nurse support and follow-up being the most effective option. However, it is not likely to be cost-effective or affordable in resource-limited clinics.