Improving Breast Screening Uptake Persuading Initial Non-Attenders to Attend

K M Turner, BJ Wilson, Fiona Jane Gilbert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Firstly, to determine whether the acceptance rate of the second invitation for breast screening (sent to women who have failed to attend after the first invitation) might be increased by an accompanying letter from a general practitioner (GP letter). Secondly, to identify the additional costs of sending such a letter.

METHODS: 465 women registered with four practices in a single health centre were recruited into a randomised controlled trial in which the intervention was the inclusion of a standard, photocopied letter signed by the non-attender's doctor with the second invitation to attend for breast screening. The control group received only the standard invitation from the breast screening centre. The costs associated with the intervention were assessed from data supplied by the breast screening centre, supplemented by direct observation of the preparation of second invitations and semistructured interviews with the staff taking part.

RESULTS: The attendance rate of the test group one month after the second invitation for screening was significantly higher than that of the control group (21% v 10%, P < 0.01). The average cost of a GP letter included with the invitation was 1.1 pence and the marginal cost for each extra attender was 9.6 pence. No non-monetary costs were identified.

CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of a GP letter appeared to be effective and feasible in increasing the attendance rate to the second invitation. This intervention should be tested in other screening groups to confirm the effectiveness of a GP letter and its cost effectiveness.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)199-202
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Medical Screening
Volume1
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Jul 1994

Fingerprint

Breast
Costs and Cost Analysis
Control Groups
General Practitioners
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials
Observation
Interviews
Health

Cite this

Turner, K. M., Wilson, BJ., & Gilbert, F. J. (1994). Improving Breast Screening Uptake Persuading Initial Non-Attenders to Attend. Journal of Medical Screening, 1(3), 199-202.

Improving Breast Screening Uptake Persuading Initial Non-Attenders to Attend. / Turner, K M; Wilson, BJ; Gilbert, Fiona Jane.

In: Journal of Medical Screening, Vol. 1, No. 3, 07.1994, p. 199-202.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Turner, KM, Wilson, BJ & Gilbert, FJ 1994, 'Improving Breast Screening Uptake Persuading Initial Non-Attenders to Attend', Journal of Medical Screening, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 199-202.
Turner, K M ; Wilson, BJ ; Gilbert, Fiona Jane. / Improving Breast Screening Uptake Persuading Initial Non-Attenders to Attend. In: Journal of Medical Screening. 1994 ; Vol. 1, No. 3. pp. 199-202.
@article{4ab1222ee0fc43428ffc9d479de51078,
title = "Improving Breast Screening Uptake Persuading Initial Non-Attenders to Attend",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: Firstly, to determine whether the acceptance rate of the second invitation for breast screening (sent to women who have failed to attend after the first invitation) might be increased by an accompanying letter from a general practitioner (GP letter). Secondly, to identify the additional costs of sending such a letter. METHODS: 465 women registered with four practices in a single health centre were recruited into a randomised controlled trial in which the intervention was the inclusion of a standard, photocopied letter signed by the non-attender's doctor with the second invitation to attend for breast screening. The control group received only the standard invitation from the breast screening centre. The costs associated with the intervention were assessed from data supplied by the breast screening centre, supplemented by direct observation of the preparation of second invitations and semistructured interviews with the staff taking part. RESULTS: The attendance rate of the test group one month after the second invitation for screening was significantly higher than that of the control group (21{\%} v 10{\%}, P < 0.01). The average cost of a GP letter included with the invitation was 1.1 pence and the marginal cost for each extra attender was 9.6 pence. No non-monetary costs were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of a GP letter appeared to be effective and feasible in increasing the attendance rate to the second invitation. This intervention should be tested in other screening groups to confirm the effectiveness of a GP letter and its cost effectiveness.",
author = "Turner, {K M} and BJ Wilson and Gilbert, {Fiona Jane}",
year = "1994",
month = "7",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "199--202",
journal = "Journal of Medical Screening",
issn = "0969-1413",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving Breast Screening Uptake Persuading Initial Non-Attenders to Attend

AU - Turner, K M

AU - Wilson, BJ

AU - Gilbert, Fiona Jane

PY - 1994/7

Y1 - 1994/7

N2 - OBJECTIVES: Firstly, to determine whether the acceptance rate of the second invitation for breast screening (sent to women who have failed to attend after the first invitation) might be increased by an accompanying letter from a general practitioner (GP letter). Secondly, to identify the additional costs of sending such a letter. METHODS: 465 women registered with four practices in a single health centre were recruited into a randomised controlled trial in which the intervention was the inclusion of a standard, photocopied letter signed by the non-attender's doctor with the second invitation to attend for breast screening. The control group received only the standard invitation from the breast screening centre. The costs associated with the intervention were assessed from data supplied by the breast screening centre, supplemented by direct observation of the preparation of second invitations and semistructured interviews with the staff taking part. RESULTS: The attendance rate of the test group one month after the second invitation for screening was significantly higher than that of the control group (21% v 10%, P < 0.01). The average cost of a GP letter included with the invitation was 1.1 pence and the marginal cost for each extra attender was 9.6 pence. No non-monetary costs were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of a GP letter appeared to be effective and feasible in increasing the attendance rate to the second invitation. This intervention should be tested in other screening groups to confirm the effectiveness of a GP letter and its cost effectiveness.

AB - OBJECTIVES: Firstly, to determine whether the acceptance rate of the second invitation for breast screening (sent to women who have failed to attend after the first invitation) might be increased by an accompanying letter from a general practitioner (GP letter). Secondly, to identify the additional costs of sending such a letter. METHODS: 465 women registered with four practices in a single health centre were recruited into a randomised controlled trial in which the intervention was the inclusion of a standard, photocopied letter signed by the non-attender's doctor with the second invitation to attend for breast screening. The control group received only the standard invitation from the breast screening centre. The costs associated with the intervention were assessed from data supplied by the breast screening centre, supplemented by direct observation of the preparation of second invitations and semistructured interviews with the staff taking part. RESULTS: The attendance rate of the test group one month after the second invitation for screening was significantly higher than that of the control group (21% v 10%, P < 0.01). The average cost of a GP letter included with the invitation was 1.1 pence and the marginal cost for each extra attender was 9.6 pence. No non-monetary costs were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of a GP letter appeared to be effective and feasible in increasing the attendance rate to the second invitation. This intervention should be tested in other screening groups to confirm the effectiveness of a GP letter and its cost effectiveness.

M3 - Article

VL - 1

SP - 199

EP - 202

JO - Journal of Medical Screening

JF - Journal of Medical Screening

SN - 0969-1413

IS - 3

ER -