Skip Navigation

Strengthen the Evidence for Maternal and Child Health Programs

Find Established Evidence


Displaying records 1 through 20 (65 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:

Estimates from the California Women's Health Survey analysis indicate that among parents 100% to 200% of the FPL, the waiver led to an 8-percentage point increase in the receipt of a routine checkup and a 12-percentage point increase (p = .03) in discussion of birth control. There was an estimated 3-percentage point decline (p = .05) in current pregnancies among nulliparous women. Multistate analysis using the BRFSS confirmed positive effects on routine checkups (p < .01).

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:

Medicaid coverage resulted in significantly higher rates of several common cancer screenings, especially among women, as well as better primary care connections and self-reported health outcomes. 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:

Attendance did not differ significantly between women who were charged and those offered free screening (RR 0.93; CI 0.85-1.02). No differences were found within the districts or as an effect of age, attendance after the most recent previous invitation or previous experience of smear taking.

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:

Women in any of the intervention arms were statistically significantly more likely to report being screened than those in the usual care group in both an intent-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol analysis. In the intent-to-treat analysis, 25% of women in the control group and 52% in the full AMIGAS program group reported having had Pap tests (P < .001); in the per-protocol analysis, the percentages were 29% and 62%, respectively (P < .001).

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:

The personalized form-letter group was significantly more likely to schedule a screening appointment and to have undergone a Pap test and mammography within 1 year after the intervention than were the tailored letter and control groups (P<0.001 for all comparisons).

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:

Logistic regression analyses show that (1) personalized-tailored letters containing individualized references to recipients' cancer risk factors failed to increase rates of recommended cancer screening behaviors, especially among non-Hispanic white women; and that (2) in contrast, a personalized-form letter with general breast and cervical cancer screening messages increased cancer screening rates in this population, especially among non-Hispanic white and Mexican-American women

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:

For this cohort study, the provincial Health Card Number database and Provincial Cytology Registry were linked. Having a Pap smear was associated with having received a letter (OR = 1.64), having been previously under-screened rather than unscreened (OR = 1.85), with youth and with higher income (OR = 1.13). After receiving a letter, women in Aboriginal, Mixed Black, Acadian, and rural communities had smear rates similar to those of other women.

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:

After 90 days following each mail-out, Pap test rates in the letter group were significantly higher than in the non-letter group, by approximately two percentage points. After controlling for potential confounders, the hazard ratio of a Pap test within 90 days of a mail-out in the letter group was 1.5 compared with 1.0 in the no-letter group. Hazard ratios of having a Pap test within 90 days decreased significantly with time since last Pap test (p<0.0001); were significantly higher than 1.0 for most non-metropolitan areas of NSW compared with metropolitan areas; and increased significantly with age (p<0.0001). Pap test hazard ratios were not associated with socio-economic status of area of residence, but the hazard ratio was significantly higher than 1.0 if the reminder letter was sent after the Christmas/New Year break. No significant differences in mean time to Pap test were found between the letter and no-letter groups.

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:

After the intervention, performance rates increased significantly for smoking cessation counseling (p = 0.02), Pap testing (p = 0.004), and pelvic examinations (p = 0.01).

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:

Follow-up data revealed significant improvements in all outcome measures.

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, more women in the LHA arm had a Pap test by the end of the study compared to those randomized to usual care.

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:

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:

Ever-screened experimental group women were significantly more likely to report Pap testing (P < .02) and to have records verifying Pap testing (P < .04) than were ever-screened control group women. There were no significant differences between the trial arms for women who had never been screened.

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:

Women who were sent an invitation letter were significantly more likely to have had a Pap test in the next 6 months compared with women who were not sent an invitation letter (odds ratio [OR]=2.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.09-3.35, p<0.001).

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:

Screening rates were significantly higher for the intervention versus the control group for clinical breast examination (CBE; 48% vs. 31%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-4.2), breast self-examination (45% vs. 27%; aOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-5.0), and Pap testing (51% vs. 30%; aOR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.1-14.1), but not for mammography (67% vs. 58%; aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.1-3.6).

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:

The decline in non-attenders was 0.87% (95% CI 0.57% to 1.16%) after 9 months in favour of the intervention. A difference of 0.94% (95% CI 0.21% to 1.67%) in the change of coverage rate was observed at 6 months, which increased to 1.97% (95% CI 0.03% to 3.91%) at 9 months in favour of the intervention.

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:

The proportion of women in the intervention group reporting recent cervical cancer screening increased from 44% at baseline to 61% at follow-up (+17%). The corresponding proportions among the control group were 51 and 62% (+11%). These temporal increases were statistically significant in both the intervention (P < 0.001) and control (P = 0.027) 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

Intervention Results:

The study found few significant changes in use of screening services for cervical (Pap test), breast (mammogram) or colorectal cancer (fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy) between intervention and control communities. Results showed no significant differences in fruit and vegetable consumption nor in smoking prevalence between the two groups. We found more awareness of and participation in intervention activities in the treatment communities than the control communities.
    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.