Skip Navigation

Strengthening the evidence for maternal and child health programs

Find Established Evidence


Displaying records 1 through 15 (15 total).

Alfonzo E, Andersson Ellstrom A, Nemes S, Strander B. Effect of fee on cervical cancer screening – ScreenFee, a Swedish population-based randomized trial. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0150888

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26986848

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation, Enabling Services

Intervention Results:

No significant differences in Pap smear rates between women offered the free screening and those who had to pay

Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ, Kingery P, Smith QW, Holcomb JD. Tailored messages for breast and cervical cancer screening of low-income and minority women using medical records data. Patient Educ Couns. 2003;50(2):123- 132.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12781927

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation

Intervention Results:

Significant differences between intervention and control groups: women in personalized tailored letter group least likely to receive screening (23.7%) vs women in personalized form letter group (43.9%) vs women in control group (39.9%) (all differences significant at p<.001)

Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ, Smith QW, Holcomb JD, Kingery P. Differential effects of messages for breast and cervical cancer screening. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2005; 16(1):42-52.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741708

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation

Intervention Results:

Significant differences between intervention and control groups: women in personalized tailored letter group least likely to receive screening (23.7%) vs women in personalized form letter group (43.9%) vs women in control group (39.9%) (all differences significant at p<.001)

Johnston GM, Boyd CJ, MacIsaac MA, Rhodes JW, Grimshaw RN. Effectiveness of letters to Cape Breton women who have not had a recent Pap smear. Chronic Dis Can. 2003;24(2-3):49-56.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12959674

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation

Intervention Results:

Significantly greater odds of Pap smear for women in intervention group than in control group (OR=1.64, 95% CI: 1.53-1.74)

Morrell S, Taylor R, Zeckendorf S, Niciak A, Wain G, Ross J. How much does a reminder letter increase cervical screening among under-screened women in NSW? Aust N Z J Public Health. 2005;29(1):78-84.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15782877

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation

Intervention Results:

53% higher Pap test rate at 90-day follow-up for women in intervention than control group (p<.0001)

Paskett ED, McLaughlin JM, Lehman AM, Katz MI, Tatum CM, Oliveri JM. Evaluating the efficacy of lay health advisors for increasing risk-appropriate Pap test screening: a randomized controlled trial among Ohio Appalachian women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20(5):835-43.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3089673/

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation, Home Visits

Intervention Results:

Based on medical record review, no significant differences in odds of a Pap smear between intervention and control groups

Vogt TM, Glass A, Glasgow RE, La Chance PA, Lichtenstein E. The safety net: a cost-effective approach to improving breast and cervical cancer screening. J Womens Health. 2003;12(8):789-98.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14588129

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation, Enabling Services, Designated Clinic/Extended Hours, PROVIDER/PRACTICE

Intervention Results:

Significantly greater odds of Pap smear for women in phone/phone and letter/phone intervention groups than in control group (phone/phone OR=4.77, letter/phone OR=5.57, p<.0001)

Decker KM, Turner D, Demers AA, Martens PJ, Lambert P, Chateau D. Evaluating the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening invitation letters. J Womens Health. 2013;22(8):687-93.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915107

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation, Educational Material, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Designated Clinic/Extended Hours

Intervention Results:

After controlling for all variables, intervention group significantly more likely to have Pap smear in the 6 months following the intervention than women in control group (OR= 2.60, 95% CI: 2.09-3.35, p<.001) in intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis

Jensen H, Svanholm H, Stovring H, Bro F. A primary healthcare-based intervention to improve a Danish cervical cancer screening programme: a cluster randomised controlled trial. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63(7):510-5.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19228681

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation

Intervention Results:

1.13 greater odds (95% CI: 1.01-1.27) of receiving Pap smear during study period for women in intervention group than in control group

Byrnes P, McGoldrick C, Crawford M, Peers M. Cervical screening in general practice - strategies for improving participation. Aust Fam Physician. 2007;36(3):183-4, 192.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17339987

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Audit/Practice Audit, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner

Intervention Results:

Increase in Pap smear participation rates from 53% at baseline to 67.5% at follow-up (p<.0001)

Dorrington MS, Herceg A, Douglas K, Tongs J, Bookallil M. Increasing Pap smear rates at an urban Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service through translational research and continuous quality improvement. Aust J Prim Health. 2015;21(4):417-22.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25703868

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation, Educational Material, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Reminder/Recall Systems, Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Designated Clinic/Extended Hours, Female Provider

Intervention Results:

Significant increase in Pap smear rate in study year compared with previous years (t(3)=10.25. p=.002). Increase stayed significantly higher at 10 months follow-up (t(50)= -3.221, p=.002)

Kaczorowski J, Hearps SJ, Lohfield L, et al. Effect of provider and patient reminders, deployment of nurse practitioners, and financial incentives on cervical and breast cancer screening rates. Can Fam Physician. 2013;59(6):e282-9.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23766067

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation, Educational Material, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Reminder/Recall Systems, Financial Incentives, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner

Intervention Results:

Significant increase in Pap smear rates between baseline and follow-up (6.3%, 95% CI: 5.1%-7.5%).

Tavasoli SM, Pefoyo AJ, Hader J, Lee A, Kupets R. Impact of invitation and reminder letters on cervical cancer screening participation rates in an organized screening program. Prev Med. 2016;88:230-6.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27143497

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation

Intervention Results:

At 9-month follow-up, intervention group, including women with invalid addresses, significantly more likely to have Pap test (p<.05)

de Jonge E, Cloes E, Op de Beeck L, et al. A quasi-randomized trial on the effectiveness of an invitation letter to improve participation in a setting of opportunistic screening for cervical cancer. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2008;17(3):238-42.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18414195

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation

Intervention Results:

3% greater increase in number of women who received a Pap smear in intervention group than control group (95% CI: 2.6-3.4)

Patel DA, Zochowski M, Peterman S, Dempsey AF, Ernst S, Dalton VK. Human papillomavirus vaccine intent and uptake among female college students. J Am Coll Health. 2012;60(2):151-161.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22316412

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation, Educational Material, Other Person-to-Person Education

Intervention Results:

No significant differences between intervention and control groups in HPV vaccination at 6 months post enrollment (RR=.84; 95% CI=.31, 2.28).
   

This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number U02MC31613, MCH Advanced Education Policy, $3.5 M. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.