Skip Navigation

Strengthening the evidence for maternal and child health programs

Find Established Evidence


Displaying records 1 through 20 (49 total).

Adams EK, Kenney GM, Galactionova K. Preventive and reproductive health services for women: the role of California’s family planning waiver. Am J Health Promot. 2013;27(3 Suppl):eS1-eS10.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23286651

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PAYER, Expanded Insurance Coverage

Intervention Results:

  • No significant differences in Pap smear rates between women before and after implementation of Medicaid waiver
  • No significant differences in Pap smear rates between women in California and those in comparison states

Wright BJ, Conlin AK, Allen HL, Tsui J, Carlson MJ, Li HF. What does Medicaid expansion mean for cancer and prevention? Results from a randomized trial on the impacts of acquiring Medicaid coverage. Cancer. 2016;122(5):791-7.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26650571

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PAYER, Expanded Insurance Coverage

Intervention Results:

  • Significantly higher percentage of Pap tests in the intervention group compared to the control group at 12 months post intervention (19 % difference; P< .015)
  • No significant differences in HPV vaccination between intervention and control groups among the total longitudinal panel at 12 months post intervention.
  • Significantly higher percentage of HPV vaccination in the intervention group compared to the control group within the elevated risk subpanel at 12 months post intervention (4% difference; P< .004)
  • There was little evidence found that acquiring Medicaid increased the adoption of preventive health behaviors that might reduce cancer risk.

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

Byrd TL, Wilson KM, Smith JL, et al. AMIGAS: a multicity, multicomponent cervical cancer prevention trial among Mexican American women. Cancer. 2013;119(7):1365-72.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23280399

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, Community-Based Group Education

Intervention Results:

Significant difference between intervention groups and control group (52.3% in full AMIGAS program, 45.5% in flip chart- only, 41.3% in video-only vs 24.8% in control group; p<.0001) in ITT analysis

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)

Nguyen BH, Nguyen K, McPhee SJ, Nguyen AT, Tran DQ, Jenkins CNH. Promoting cancer prevention activities among Vietnamese physicians in California. J Cancer Educ. 2000;15(2):82-5.

Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08858190009528662

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

Intervention Results:

At 3-year follow-up, physician performance rates for Pap testing increased significantly (p=.004)

O’Brien MJ, Halbert CH, Bixby R, Pimentel S, Shea JA. Community health worker intervention to decrease cervical cancer disparities in Hispanic women. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(11):1186-92.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20607434

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, Community-Based Group Education

Intervention Results:

Significantly higher screening rates at 6-month follow-up for women in intervention than in control group (65% vs 36%, p=.02)

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

Taylor VM, Hislop TG, Jackson JC, et al. A randomized controlled trial of interventions to promote cervical cancer screening among Chinese women in North America. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(9):670-7.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11983755

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

Intervention Results:

At 6-month follow-up, women in both intervention groups significantly more likely to have Pap smear than women in control group (39% in outreach worker group vs 15% in control, p<.001; 25% in direct mail group vs 15% in control, p=.03)

Taylor VM, Jackson JC, Yasui Y, et al. Evaluation of a cervical cancer control intervention using lay health workers for V50ietnamese American women. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(10):1924-9.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936992/

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

Intervention Results:

No significant differences in Pap smear rates 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

Jandorf L, Bursac Z, Pulley L, Trevino M, Castillo A, Erwin DO. Breast and cervical cancer screening among Latinas attending culturally specific educational programs. Prog Community Health Partnership. 2008; 2(3):195- 204

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20208198

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

Intervention Results:

After controlling for site and marital status, women in the intervention group had significantly increased odds of Pap smear adherence (OR=3.9, p=.0437)

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

Mishra SI, Luce PH, Baquet CR. Increasing pap smear utilization among Samoan women: results from a community based participatory randomized trial. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2009;20(2 Suppl):85-101.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3604739/

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

Intervention Results:

Significantly higher screening rates at 6-month follow-up for women in intervention than in control group (61.7% vs 38.3%, p=.004)

Taylor VM, Jackson JC, Yasui Y, et al. Evaluation of an outreach intervention to promote cervical cancer screening among Cambodian American women. Cancer Detect Prev. 2002;26(4):320-7.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1592335/

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, Patient Navigation, Enabling Services, COMMUNITY, Community Events, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, Home Visits

Intervention Results:

No significant differences in the odds of having a Pap smear between intervention and control groups

Thompson B, Coronado G, Chen L, Islas, I. Celebremos la salud! a community randomized trial of cancer prevention. Cancer Causes Control. 2006;17(5):733-46.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16633921

NPM: 1: Well-Woman Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Other Person-to-Person Education, Enabling Services, Other Media, Community Events, COMMUNITY, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS

    Next Page »

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.