Research ArticleOriginal Article

Effectiveness of Interventions to Increase Papanicolaou Smear Use

K. Robin Yabroff, Patricia Mangan and Jeanne Mandelblatt
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice May 2003, 16 (3) 188-203; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.16.3.188

Abstract

Background: Many women fail to adhere to Papanicolaou smear screening guidelines. Although many interventions have been developed to increase screening, the effectiveness of different types of interventions is unclear.

Methods: We performed a systematic review of interventions to increase Papanicolaou smear use published between 1980 and April 2001 and included concurrently or randomized controlled studies with defined outcomes. Interventions were classified as targeted to patients, providers, patients and providers, or health care systems and as behavioral, cognitive, sociologic, or a combination based on the expected action of the intervention. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each intervention.

Results: Forty-six studies with 63 separate interventions were included. Most interventions increased Papanicolaou smear use, although in many cases the increase was not statistically significant. Behavioral interventions targeted to patients (eg, mailed or telephone reminders) increased Papanicolaou smear use by up to 18.8%; cognitive and sociologic interventions were only marginally effective, although a single culturally specific, sociologic intervention using a lay health worker increased use by 18.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.6, 28.4). Provider-targeted interventions were heterogeneous. Interventions that targeted both patients and providers did not appear to be any more effective than interventions targeted to either patients or providers alone. One of the most effective interventions, which introduced a system change by integrating a nurse-practitioner and offered same-day screening, increased screening by 32.7% (95% CI: 20.5, 44.9).

Conclusions: Overall, most interventions increased Papanicolaou smear use, although there was tremendous variability in their effectiveness. Selection of intervention strategies will depend on provider and patient population characteristics and feasibility of implementation.

Screening with regular Papanicolaou smears can decrease not only cervical cancer mortality but also the incidence of invasive disease.1 ,2 Despite increases in recent Papanicolaou smear use during the past two decades,3 ,4 with national estimates of approximately 80% within the past 3 years,4 some women still fail to adhere to recommended Papanicolaou smear screening guidelines,3–26 are found to have advanced disease, and die of invasive cervical cancer.27–29 Thus, the potential benefits of routine screening are not being fully realized. Increasing the provision of Papanicolaou smear counseling by primary care providers and, ultimately, routine Papanicolaou smear use are important components of current Healthy People 2010 goals for reducing cervical cancer mortality.30

Physician recommendation is one of the strongest predictors of screening use,13 ,17 ,31–37 but in many cases, women report that their provider did not recommend Papanicolaou smears.5 ,7 ,18 ,38–45 Explanations for this behavior include lack of time, busy schedules and forgetfulness,46 ,47 beliefs about screening efficacy in the absence of symptoms or concern about proficiency,31 ,48 or confusion about conflicting professional recommendations.46 In the absence of a physician recommendation, patients might assume that screening is unnecessary.

Women who do not receive regular Papanicolaou smears are more likely to be older,5–26 ,49–52 uninsured or underinsured,* lack a usual source of care or regular provider,† and have lower educational attainment or lower household income.‡ Among immigrant women, those who do not speak English or have lower levels of acculturation are also less likely to receive regular Papanicolaou smears.16 ,22 ,23 ,52 ,58 ,64 ,65

Additionally, women might not know about the potential benefits of screening, believe it to be unnecessary in the absence of symptoms,§ fear a potential cancer diagnosis, or believe that cancer cannot be cured.‖ Women might also be concerned about inconvenience, discomfort, embarrassment, or pain associated with the test itself.7 ,25 ,42–45 ,52 ,69 Concerns about modesty or cultural restrictions on gynecological examinations by male physicians could exacerbate other barriers to screening.22 ,25 ,43 ,66 ,72–74 Finally, women might know about the need for Papanicolaou smears but have put off receiving a test because of convenience, time constraints, or forgetfulness.5 ,25 ,38 ,40 ,44 ,59 ,69

During the past two decades, results from numerous interventions to increase Papanicolaou smear use have been reported.75 ,76 These interventions focus on increasing rates of provider recommendation, reducing patient barriers to screening, or both. Two reviews provided descriptive information about interventions published before 1998 and whether they were effective75 ,76 but did not provide details about the magnitude of effectiveness. Because of the large numbers of interventions, particularly in the past several years, and differences in study design, populations, and intervention content, it is difficult to know which interventions are most effective in increasing Papanicolaou smear use. This systematic review of the published literature was conducted to update previous reviews74 ,75 and provide information on the effectiveness of controlled interventions to increase Papanicolaou smear use.

Methods

Study Selection

We used the Ovid search mechanism for MEDLINE to select English language articles published between 1980 and April 2001 on interventions to increase Papanicolaou smear use. The start date of 1980 was chosen because the National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference endorsed routine Papanicolaou smear screening and began to publicize their screening guidelines in that year.77 The search strategy used the subject terms “health behavior,” “patient compliance,” “patient acceptance of health care,” “attitude to health,” “health education,” or “health promotion” (N = 75,985) with the subject terms “Papanicolaou smear” or “cervical neoplasms/prevention and control” (N = 1,871). The combination yielded 467 studies. Study abstracts were reviewed for evidence of random or concurrent assignment of subjects to an intervention or control group, prospective follow-up, and Papanicolaou smear use or recommendation as an outcome. Pre-post designs without control groups were excluded because secular trends to increased Papanicolaou smear use in the past two decades3 ,4 would limit the interpretation of intervention effectiveness. Non-US studies were excluded because differences across systems of care might limit the generalizability of outcomes.

From the review of abstracts, 66 studies were potentially eligible for inclusion. Of this number, 14 were eliminated because they lacked concurrent or randomly assigned control groups and 27 were eliminated because the outcome was not receipt or recommendation of Papanicolaou smear and were non-US studies. Physician-targeted interventions with a documented outcome of recommendation of Papanicolaou smear use were not excluded because these interventions were designed to improve this behavior. Nine interventions were excluded because they were designed to improve follow-up after abnormal Papanicolaou smears, which left 16 studies as a result of the search.78–90 Because electronic searches might not identify all relevant studies,91 reference lists and published reviews of interventions70 ,75 ,76 were reviewed, and a hand search of the journals Preventive Medicine and American Journal of Preventive Medicine for 1999 through April 2001 was conducted to find other eligible studies. Thirty additional studies were found,92–124 and 46 studies are included in this article.

Data Abstraction

Data were abstracted from studies using a standardized abstraction format to describe the intervention target (ie, patient, physician, patient and physician, or health care system), type of intervention, intervention content, means of determining receipt of Papanicolaou smear (eg, self-report, chart), characteristics of the patient population, and intervention effectiveness. In randomized trials where the sample size was not reported for each arm, the sample was divided by the number of study arms to estimate the number of women in each arm.

Each intervention within a study was abstracted separately. Within studies, interventions were classified based on the underlying mechanism of an intervention to increase Papanicolaou smear use using a previously developed classification scheme.125 Interventions were classified as behavioral, cognitive, sociologic, or a combination of the three. Behavioral interventions change stimuli associated with Papanicolaou smear use (eg, reminders). Cognitive interventions provide new information, educate women about Papanicolaou smears, and clarify any existing misperceptions. Cognitive interventions were categorized further as individually tailored or based on theory (eg, health belief model) and as using generic educational materials. Cognitive interventions were also classified based on the method of delivery—interactively (eg, by telephone or in person) or statically (eg, by letter or pamphlet). Sociologic interventions use social norms or peers to increase Papanicolaou smear use (eg, lay health workers, peer counselors).

Interventions were classified further based on the content of the intervention (eg, telephone reminder) and type of control group to which the intervention was compared. Studies that included a lower level intervention to increase Papanicolaou smear use as the control group (eg, postcard reminder) were considered to have active controls. Studies in which the control group did not receive any specific strategies to increase Papanicolaou smear use were classified as having usual-care controls. In studies with combined interventions in which the same strategy was applied to intervention and control groups (active controls), the intervention was categorized by the difference between intervention and control groups.

Data Analysis

Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each intervention. For randomized studies, intervention effectiveness was calculated as the difference in Papanicolaou smear use between the intervention and control groups at the first assessment of intervention effectiveness. Variance was calculated for binomial proportions for intervention and control groups. For concurrently controlled studies, the effect size was calculated as the difference between the screening rates before and after the intervention for the intervention group and the control group ([Pscreened postintervention–Pscreened preintervention] − [Pscreened postcontrol–Pscreened precontrol]). Variance was calculated for the binomial proportions for intervention and control groups both before and after the intervention.

Compliance scores, which measured compliance with recommended screening frequency (number of screenings during a specified period divided by the number of women eligible for screening), were treated as the proportion of women screened for the purposes of this article. In two studies, compliance scores were based on a 3-year frequency of Papanicolaou smear use108 ,109 and were greater than 100% because most screening guidelines recommend screening more often than every 3 years. These scores were divided by 3 to create an average annual compliance score.

Within each group of intervention (eg, reminders mailed to patients compared with active controls), the effect size and 95% confidence interval for each intervention was graphed, and graphs were inspected visually for signs of heterogeneity. Because of the variability in patient populations and setting, as well as small numbers of interventions in any single category, we did not perform quantitative analysis.

Results

Of the 46 studies, there were 63 separate interventions; 24 were targeted to patients, 25 to physicians, and 12 to both patients and physicians. Two interventions introduced system changes (Table 1 78–90 ,92–124). Most studies were randomized controlled trials (n = 31; 67.4%). Overall, the largest number of interventions, 22, used behavioral strategies; all other categories had 10 or fewer interventions each. Most studies included women in the 50- to 59-year age-group (60.9%), and approximately 30% of the studies included women younger than 40 years. Many studies (41.3%) included a sizable portion (>20%) of minority women. About one half of the studies reported health insurance status of the patient population. Among this group, most were conducted in samples where at least 75% of the patient population had health insurance. Finally, the period of assessment following intervention delivery was most frequently 12 or more months, although many studies also reported assessments of 3 to 6 and 6 to 12 months.

View this table:
Table 1.

Study Characteristics.

The types of interventions changed during the past two decades. In general, most interventions conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s were compared with usual-care controls, whereas those conducted in the 1990s were mainly compared with active controls. Additionally, interventions conducted in the late 1990s generally included multiple different components and targeted patients and providers, whereas those conducted in earlier years focused on single components and targeted patients or providers. For example, in an intervention published in 1999, Paskett and colleagues79 reported the combined effectiveness of an intervention that targeted both patients and providers and used letter reminders, office reminders, multiple educational strategies, mass media, and lay health workers. Earlier interventions evaluated provider reminders alone.119

Patient-Targeted Interventions

The 24 patient-targeted interventions are listed in Table 2.

View this table:
Table 2.

Patient-Targeted Interventions to Increase Papanicolaou Smear Use.

Behavioral Interventions

Compared with usual care, the single behavioral intervention was very effective and increased Papanicolaou smear use by 24.4% (95% CI: 11.1, 37.7).96 Among the five interventions that were compared with active controls, one intervention was associated with decreased rates of Papanicolaou smear use (−8.6%; 95% CI: −13.1, −4.1).111 Compared with active controls, the other four behavioral strategies were effective, and improvements in Papanicolaou smear use ranged from 10.1% to 18.8%.86 ,103 ,116 The telephone reminder was associated with the largest increase in Papanicolaou smear use and was from a single study in which multiple interventions were tested separately.86

Cognitive Interventions

All four cognitive interventions were theory based and compared with active controls. The three delivered statically by letter did not improve Papanicolaou smear use, but the fourth, delivered interactively by telephone, led to an increase in Papanicolaou smear use of 8%, although this finding was not statistically significant (95% CI: −1.4, 17.4).113

Two of the three behavioral and cognitive interventions utilized mailed generic educational information and reminders and were not associated with significant improvements in Papanicolaou smear use.85 ,94 The third, which incorporated a telephone call from a health educator with the reminder in the intervention group, reported a 13.5% increase in Papanicolaou smear use (95% CI: 7.6,19.4).

Sociologic Interventions

Most of the sociologic interventions were targeted to specific ethnic groups and used lay health workers,126 women recruited from the target population, to encourage women to attend screening.80 ,82–84 ,87 The interventions that used sociologic strategies alone and sociologic and cognitive strategies had similar effects, and most improved Papanicolaou smear use from 2.7% to 9.2%,78 ,82–84 ,88 ,89 ,100 ,122 although not all increases were statistically significant. Two interventions were associated with decreased Papanicolaou smear use,80 ,87 although this finding was not statistically significant. The authors of one these interventions speculated that increased outreach efforts in the comparison community were responsible for a lack of effect.80 Two of the three sociologic, behavioral, and cognitive interventions led to large increases in Papanicolaou smear use, 18.0% and 36.0%.82 ,122 The first, conducted by Bird and colleagues,82 used lay health workers, educational pamphlets, and financial incentives and was culturally specific to Vietnamese-American women. The apparent effectiveness of the second, conducted by Whitman and colleagues,122 might be due to the decline in Papanicolaou smear use from 39% to 17% in the concurrent control group. The other intervention in this category relied on media to present role model behaviors and did not lead to increased Papanicolaou smear use.81

Provider-Targeted and Provider- and Patient-Targeted Interventions

The 27 provider targeted interventions are listed in Table 3,** and the 12 provider- and patient-targeted interventions are listed in Table 4.††

View this table:
Table 3.

Provider-Targeted Interventions to Increase Papanicolaou Smear Use.

View this table:
Table 4.

Patient- and Provider-Targeted Interventions to Increase Papanicolaou Smear Use.

Behavioral Interventions

The nine interventions compared with usual-care controls‡‡ did not appear to have higher rates of screening than similar interventions compared with active controls§§ (Table 3). There was great heterogeneity among the behavioral interventions, ranging from a statistically significant 18% decrease in Papanicolaou smear use93 to a 44% increase.90 There was no clear difference in effectiveness between chart reminders and flow sheets requiring completion; in fact, both studies with extreme findings used flow sheets requiring completion. In the study with decreased Papanicolaou smear use, the authors suggested that the intervention was incompletely implemented, leading to an unexpected decline in Papanicolaou smear use. The same intervention, however, was also assessed for other preventive strategies and was associated with increased clinical breast examination, mammography, and three types of immunizations.93 The intervention associated with a 44% increase in Papanicolaou smear use was based on a potentially inappropriate concurrent control group—preintervention rates of Papanicolaou smear use were 98% in the control group compared with 43% in intervention arm.92

Provider- and patient-targeted behavioral interventions were also heterogeneous and ranged in effectiveness from a 6% decrease (95% CI:−10.5, −1.5)111 to 13.8% increase (95% CI:10.9, 16.7) in Papanicolaou smear use116 (Table 4).

Cognitive Interventions

The three interventions that used seminars or audit with feedback97 ,108 ,119 led to slight increases in Papanicolaou smear use, from 2%97 to 8%.108 Three interventions used a combination of cognitive and behavioral strategies.97 ,114 ,119 The effects were varied and ranged from a significant decline in Papanicolaou smear use of −6% (95% CI: −11.9, −0.1)119 to an 18% increase (95% CI: −21.3, 57.3)114 (Table 3).

Interventions targeted to patients and physicians using behavioral and cognitive strategies were also variable in their impact on Papanicolaou smear use, ranging from a 7% decrease in use (95% CI: −10.6, −3.4)98 to a 13% increase in Papanicolaou smear use (95% CI: −7.5, 32.5).121 Although most estimates were positive, only one, which included six separate intervention components, was statistically significant106 (Table 4).

Sociologic Interventions

The combined sociologic, behavioral, and cognitive intervention strategy targeted to physicians and patients that used a generic educational strategy had little impact on Papanicolaou smear use,123 whereas the intervention that used church liaisons, educational mass media campaigns, lay health workers, theory-based education, and community activities as the cognitive strategies79 ,127 led to a 21% increase in Papanicolaou smear use (95% CI: 6.0, 36.0) (Table 4).

System Interventions

Finally, two interventions introduced system changes.105 ,117 One altered how medical care was delivered by integrating into a clinic a nurse-practitioner who was able to perform same-day screening.105 This intervention was extremely effective, leading to a 32.7% increase in Papanicolaou smear use (95% CI: 20.5, 44.9). The other system intervention used trained community health workers and led to a 7% increase in Papanicolaou smear use (95% CI: −1.3, 15.3), although it was not statistically significant.

Discussion

As shown in this systematic review of interventions to increase Papanicolaou smear use, many patient and provider barriers can be overcome with well-implemented interventions. Selection and implementation of intervention strategies to improve Papanicolaou smear screening can be based, in part, on the characteristics of the underlying patient and provider populations. For example, patient forgetfulness can be overcome with behavioral reminders sent to the home or delivered by telephone. Telephone reminders increased Papanicolaou smear use by up to 18% (95% CI: 15.8, 21.8).86 Such reminder interventions might be particularly effective in increasing regular screening among women who previously had a Papanicolaou smear. Forgetfulness in providers can also be overcome with behavioral reminders included on the chart or flow sheets requiring completion, although these findings varied widely.

Women who have not had a previous Papanicolaou smear might be difficult to reach through traditional medical settings and might require more extensive outreach strategies. Sociologic strategies, which use lay health workers, could be effective in populations who might distrust the health care system or have other cultural barriers to screening. Sociologic strategies were marginally effective in increasing Papanicolaou smear use, although a culturally sensitive intervention that also included behavioral and cognitive strategies was particularly effective in a population of Vietnamese-American women, increasing Papanicolaou smear use by 18.0% (95% CI: 7.6, 28.4).82

Few interventions focused on patient lack of knowledge or fears of Papanicolaou smear, although use of interactive delivery of cognitive educational interventions by telephone was associated with increased Papanicolaou smear use. Provider educational strategies developed to clarify information about screening efficacy and guidelines or to improve proficiency were marginally effective in increasing Papanicolaou smear use. Interventions that targeted both patients and providers appeared to increase screening, although they were generally not much more effective than similar interventions targeted to either patients or providers alone.

Few interventions introduced system level changes, although one that integrated a nurse practitioner into a primary care practice who could also perform same-day screening led to a large increase in Papanicolaou smear use (32.7%; 95% CI: 20.5, 44.9).105 Other uncontrolled strategies that use same-day screening in emergency departments128 ,129 or churches130 have been reported to be feasible and to increase Papanicolaou smear use. These opportunistic screening strategies might also be more resource intensive and require reservation of personnel and facilities for performance of screening on demand. Other effective strategies, such as patient or provider reminders, could be inexpensive on an on-going basis, but might require an initial investment in computer infrastructure. Thus, measuring the cost and cost-effectiveness of different intervention strategies will provide important information for health departments, providers, and other health care organizations about the feasibility of implementing interventions to improve Papanicolaou use.38 ,131

In several cases, interventions were ineffective in increasing Papanicolaou smear use, but the same intervention in the same provider and patient populations led to large increases in mammography or other preventive services.93 ,119 There are several potential alternative explanations for this finding, including differences in a woman’s perception of these tests or likelihood of developing cancer, differences in provider beliefs about proficiency, or the time required for performance of different screening tests. Exploring potential differences in intervention effectiveness and any differential impact of the underlying barriers for screening in different types of screening tests will be an important area for future cancer control research.

There are some limitations with this review, including the reliance on an electronic search of the published literature for identifying interventions, the combination of multiple measures of Papanicolaou smear utilization (eg, self-report, chart review) or documented Papanicolaou smear ordering, and discrepancies between the unit of randomization and the unit of analysis in published interventions. Our search strategy, although similar to one used successfully for meta-analyses of interventions to increase mammography use,132 ,133 found fewer interventions than did the review of bibliographies or the hand search of recent articles published in prevention-oriented journals. Additionally, studies with negative findings might be less likely to be published91 and found by our search strategy. As a result, the estimates of intervention effectiveness presented here might overstate their true effectiveness.

Studies included here used different mechanisms to determine Papanicolaou smear use, including self-report, chart-audit, and electronic claims. Papanicolaou smear self-report has been reported to overestimate utilization when compared with charts or claims data, with reports of accuracy ranging from 67% to 99% agreement.134–138 Similarly, the timing of the measurement of Papanicolaou smear receipt differed across the studies, with some studies reporting Papanicolaou smear use within 6 months of the intervention‖‖ and others reporting Papanicolaou smear use 1 year or more 2 years or more after the intervention was initiated.¶¶ Additionally, some of the provider-targeted interventions were based on whether Papanicolaou smears were recommended or ordered,95 ,99 ,101 ,107 ,118 rather than on a woman’s receipt of Papanicolaou smear. Within a given study, however, women in the intervention and control arms should be equally likely to overstate utilization or not comply with provider recommended Papanicolaou smear, so the relative estimate (intervention-control) is unlikely to be affected. In two studies, Papanicolaou smear use was measured as a 3-year compliance rate and converted to an annual rate because compliance was greater than 100%.108 ,109 These annual rates might understate the effectiveness of these interventions.

Several studies randomized clinics, physician practices, churches, or more broadly defined communities to intervention and control conditions and then performed analysis on the number of women in each of the groups, rather than the unit of randomization.92 ,111 Women living within a specific community or treated at a similar clinic are more likely to have similar behaviors and are not independent observations.139 If the actual unit of randomization or the correlation among women was accounted for in analysis, the point estimate of intervention effectiveness would not be affected, but the confidence interval would likely be wider. As a result, the confidence intervals reported here could overestimate the effectiveness of interventions to increase Papanicolaou smear use.

Notes

  • Received for publication July 16, 2002.
  • Revision received July 16, 2002.

References

  1. ↵
    Clarke EA, Anderson TW. Does screening by “Pap” smears help prevent cervical cancer? A case-control study. Lancet 1979; 2: 1–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    La Vecchia C, Franceschi S, Decarti A, Fasoli M, Gentile A, Tognoni G. “Pap” smear and the risk of cervical neoplasia: quantitative estimates from a case-control study. Lancet 1984; 2: 779–82.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    Blackman DK, Bennett EM, Miller DS. Trends in self-reported use of mammograms (1989–1997) and Papanicolaou tests (1991–1997)—Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep CDC Surveill Summ 1999; 48: 1–22.
  4. ↵
    Breen N, Wagener DK, Brown ML, Davis WW, Ballard-Barbash R. Progress in cancer screening over a decade: results of cancer screening from the 1987, 1992 and 1998 National Health Interview Surveys. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93: 1704–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    Breast and cervical cancer screening among underserved women. Baseline survey results from six states. The National Cancer Institute Cancer Screening Consortium for Underserved Women. Arch Fam Med 1995; 4: 617–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    Hayward RA, Shapiro MF, Freeman HE, Corey CR. Who gets screened for cervical and breast cancer? Results from a new national survey. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148: 1177–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Skaer TL, Robison LM, Selar DA, Harding GH. Knowledge, attitudes, and patterns of cancer screening: a self-report among foreign born Hispanic women utilizing rural migrant health clinics. J Rural Health 1996; 12: 169–77.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    Calle EE, Flanders WD, Thun MJ, Martin LM. Demographic predictors of mammography and Pap smear screening in US women. Am J Public Health 1993; 83: 53–60.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. Celentano DD, Klassen AC, Weisman CS, Rosenshein NB. Cervical cancer screening practices among older women: results from the Maryland Cervical Cancer Case-Control Study. J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41: 531–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. Anderson LM, May DS. Has the use of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening increased in the United States? Am J Public Health 1995; 85: 840–2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    Elnicki DM, Morris DK, Shockcor WT. Patient-perceived barriers to preventive health care among indigent, rural Appalachian patients. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 421–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    Mandelblatt J, Traxler M, Lakin P, Kanetsky P, Kao R. Mammography and Papanicolaou smear use by elderly poor black women. The Harlem Study Team. J Am Geriatr Soc 1992; 40: 1001–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    Mamon JA, Shediac MC, Crosby CB, Sanders B, Matanoski GM, Celentano DD. Inner-city women at risk for cervical cancer: behavioral and utilization factors related to inadequate screening. Prev Med 1990; 19: 363–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Howe HL, Bzduch H. A survey of Pap smear screening in upstate New York. NY State J Med 1986; 86: 291–6.
  15. Wilcox LS, Mosher WD. Factors associated with obtaining health screening among women of reproductive age. Public Health Rep 1993; 108: 76–86.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    Ramirez AG, Suarez L, Laufman L, Barroso C, Chalela P. Hispanic women’s breast and cervical cancer knowledge, attitudes, and screening behaviors. Am J Health Promot 2000; 14: 292–300.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    Austin RM, Baron PL, Gates CE. Opportunities for enhanced cervical and breast screening referral in Charleston County. J S C Med Assoc 1993; 89: 323–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. ↵
    Spurlock C, Nadel M, McManmon E. Age and Pap smear history as a basis for intervention strategy. J Community Health 1992; 17: 97–107.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    Potosky AL, Breen N, Graubard BI, Parsons PE. The association between health care coverage and the use of cancer screening tests. Results from the 1992 National Health Interview Survey. Med Care 1998; 36: 257–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. Gilliland FD, Mahler R, Hunt WC, Davis SM. Preventive health care among rural American Indians in New Mexico. Prev Med 1999; 28: 194–202.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. Lengerich EJ, Conlisk EA, Pisano E, Harris L, Holliday J. A program to control breast and cervical cancer in North Carolina. N C Med J 1998; 59: 110–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. ↵
    McPhee SJ, Bird JA, Davis T, Ha NT, Jenkins CN, Le B. Barriers to breast and cervical cancer screening among Vietnamese-American women. Am J Prev Med 1997; 13: 205–13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. ↵
    Suarez L, Pulley L. Comparing acculturation scales and their relationship to cancer screening among older Mexican-American women. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1995; 18: 41–7.
  24. ↵
    Norman SA, Talbott EO, Kuller LH, Krampe BR, Stolley PD. Demographic, psychosocial, and medical correlates of Pap testing: a literature review. Am J Prev Med 1991; 7: 219–26.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. ↵
    Sawyer JA, Earp J, Fletcher RH, Daye FF, Wynn TM. Pap tests of rural black women. J Gen Intern Med 1990; 5: 115–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. ↵
    Ayanian JZ, Kohler BA, Abe T, Epstein AM. The relation between health insurance coverage and clinical outcomes among women with breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 326–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, et al, editors. SEER cancer statistics review, 1973–1999. Bethesda, Md: National Cancer Institute, 2000. Available at http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1973_1999/2002.
  28. Mitchell JB, McCormack LA. Time trends in late-stage diagnosis of cervical cancer. Differences by race/ethnicity and income. Med Care 1997; 35: 1220–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. Breen N, Figueroa JB. Stage of breast and cervical cancer diagnosis in disadvantaged neighborhoods: a prevention policy perspective. Am J Prev Med 1996; 12: 319–26.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. ↵
    Healthy people 2010: understanding and improving health. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000.
  31. ↵
    Schapira DV, Pamies RJ, Kumar NB, et al. Cancer screening. Knowledge, recommendations, and practices of physicians. Cancer 1993; 71: 839–43.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. ↵
    Grady KE, Lemkau JP, McVay JM, Reisine ST. The importance of physician encouragement in breast cancer screening of older women. Prev Med 1992; 21: 766–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. Fox SA, Stein JA. The effect of physician-patient communication on mammography utilization by different ethnic groups. Med Care 1991; 29: 1065–82.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. ↵
    Fox SA, Siu AL, Stein JA. The importance of physician communication on breast cancer screening of older women. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154: 2058–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. Mann LC, Hawes DR, Ghods M, Bednar EJ, Potchen EJ. Utilization of screening mammography: comparison of different physician specialties. Radiology 1987; 164: 121–2.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. ↵
    Vernon SW, Laville EA, Jackson GL. Participation in breast screening programs: a review. Soc Sci Med 1990; 30: 1107–18.
  37. Bastani R, Marcus AC, Hollatz-Brown A. Screening mammography rates and barriers to use: a Los Angeles County survey. Prev Med 1991; 20: 350–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    Lantz PM, Stencil D, Lippert MT, Jaros L, Eaker ED. Implementation issues and cost associated with a proven strategy for increasing breast and cervical cancer screening among low-income women. J Public Health Manag Pract 1996; 2: 54–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. Lerman C, Caputo C, Brody D. Factors associated with inadequate cervical cancer screening among lower income primary care patients. J Am Board Fam Pract 1990; 3: 151–6.
  40. ↵
    Harlan LC, Bernstein AB, Kessler LG. Cervical cancer screening: who is not screened and why? Am J Public Health 1991; 81: 885–90.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. ↵
    Mandelblatt J, Traxler M, Lakin P, Kanetsky P, Kao R. Mammography and Papanicolaou smear use by elderly poor black women. The Harlem Study Team. J Am Geriatr Soc 1992; 40: 1001–7.
  42. ↵
    Walker R, Lucas W, Crespo R. The West Virginia Rural Cancer Prevention project. Cancer Pract 1994; 2: 421–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. ↵
    Frank-Stromborg M, Wassner LJ, Nelson M, Chilton B, Wholeben BE. A study of rural Latino women seeking cancer-detection examinations. J Cancer Educ 1998; 13: 231–41.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. ↵
    Perez-Stable EJ, Otero-Sabogal R, Sabogal F, McPhee SJ, Hiatt RA. Self-reported use of cancer screening tests among Latinos and Anglos in a prepaid health plan. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154: 1073–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    Lantz PM, Weigers ME, House JS. Education and income differentials in breast and cervical cancer screening. Policy implications for rural women. Med Care 1997; 35: 219–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    McPhee SJ, Richard RJ, Solkowitz SN. Performance of cancer screening in a university general internal medicine practice: comparison with the 1980 American Cancer Society Guidelines. J Gen Intern Med 1986; 1: 275–81.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  47. ↵
    Herman CJ, Lengerich EJ, Stoodt G. Variation in recommendations for breast and cervical cancer screening among primary care physicians in North Carolina, 1991. South Med J 1996; 89: 583–90.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  48. ↵
    Rubin E, Frank MS, Stanley RJ, Bernreuter WK, Han SY. Patient-initiated mobile mammography: analysis of the patients and the problems. South Med J 1990; 83: 178–84.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. ↵
    Ives DG, Lave JR, Traven ND, Schulz R, Kuller LH. Mammography and Pap smear use by older rural women. Public Health Rep 1996; 111: 244–50.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  50. Weinrich S, Coker AL, Weinrich M, Eleazer GP, Greene FL. Predictors of Pap smear screening in socioeconomically disadvantaged elderly women. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995; 43: 267–70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. ↵
    Rimer BK, Conaway MR, Lyna PR, et al. Cancer screening practices among women in a community health center population. Am J Prev Med 1996; 12: 351–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  52. ↵
    Buller D, Modiano MR, Guernsey de Zapien J, Meister J, Saltzman S, Hunsaker F. Predictors of cervical cancer screening in Mexican American women of reproductive age. J Health Care Poor Underserved 1998; 9: 76–94.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  53. ↵
    Ornstein SM, Garr DR, Jenkins RG, Rust PF, Zemp L, Arnon A. Compliance with five health promotion recommendations in a university-based family practice. J Fam Pract 1989; 29: 163–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. ↵
    Kirkman-Liff B, Kronenfeld JJ. Access to cancer screening services for women. Am J Public Health 1992; 82: 733–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  55. Katz SJ, Hofer TP. Socioeconomic disparities in preventive care persists despite universal coverage. Breast and cervical cancer screening in Ontario and the United States. JAMA 1994; 272: 530–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    O’Malley AS, Mandelblatt J, Gold K, Cagney KA, Kerner J. Continuity of care and the use of breast and cervical cancer screening services in a multiethnic community. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 1462–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    Polednak AP. Reported Pap test use by Hispanic women in Connecticut and Long Island. Conn Med 1996; 60: 3–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. ↵
    Skaer TL, Robison LM, Sclar DA, Harding GH. Cancer-screening determinants among Hispanic women using migrant health clinics. J Health Care Poor Underserved 1996; 7: 338–54.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  59. ↵
    Thomas SM, Fick AC. Women’s health: early detection and screening practices for breast and cervical cancer. J La State Med Soc 1994; 146: 152–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  60. Rutledge DN, Hartmann WH, Kinman PO, Winfield AC. Exploration of factors affecting mammography behaviors. Prev Med 1988; 17: 412–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. Vincent AL, Greene JN, Hoercherl S, McTague D. Women at risk: Papanicolaou smear screening in Florida. J Fla Med Assoc 1997; 84: 302–7.
  62. Stearns SC, Slifkin RT, Edin HM. Access to care for rural Medicare beneficiaries. J Rural Health 2000; 16: 31–42.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. Hoffman-Goetz L, Breen NL, Meissner H. The impact of social class on the use of cancer screening within three racial/ethnic groups in the United States. Ethn Dis 1998; 8: 43–51.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  64. ↵
    Suarez L. Pap smear and mammogram screening in Mexican-American women: the effects of acculturation. Am J Public Health 1994; 84: 742–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    Suarez L, Roche RA, Nichols D, Simpson DM. Knowledge, behavior, and fears concerning breast and cervical cancer among older low-income Mexican-American women. Am J Prev Med 1997; 13: 137–42.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  66. ↵
    Goldsmith DF, Sisneros GC. Cancer prevention strategies among California farm workers: preliminary findings. J Rural Health 1996; 12(4 Suppl): 343–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  67. Dignan M, Michielutte R, Sharp P, Bahnson J, Young L, Beal P. The role of focus groups in health education for cervical cancer among minority women. J Community Health 1990; 15: 369–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. Strickland J, Strickland DL. Barriers to preventive health services for minority households in the rural south. J Rural Health 1996; 12: 206–17.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  69. ↵
    Branoff R, Santi K, Campbell JK, Roetzheim R, Oler M. A family practice residency cervical screening project: perceived screening barriers. Fam Med 1997; 29: 119–23.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  70. ↵
    Vellozzi CJ, Romans M, Rothenberg RB. Delivering breast and cervical cancer screening services to underserved women: Part I. Literature review and telephone survey. Womens Health Issues 1996; 6: 65–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. Perez-Stable EJ, Sabogal F, Otero-Sabogal R, Hiatt RA, McPhee SJ. Misconceptions about cancer among Latinos and Anglos. JAMA 1992; 268: 3219–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    Kraut AM. Healers and strangers. Immigrant attitudes toward the physician in America—a relationship in historical perspective. JAMA 1990; 263: 1807–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. Tosomeen AH, Marquez MA, Panser LA, Kottke TE. Developing preventive health programs for recent immigrants. A case study of cancer screening for Vietnamese women in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Minn Med 1996; 79: 46–8.
    OpenUrl
  74. ↵
    Penn NE, Kar S, Kramer J, Skinner J, Zambrana RE. Ethnic minorities, health care systems, and behavior. Health Psychol 1995; 14: 641–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    Meissner HI, Breen N, Coyne C, Legler JM, Green DT, Edwards BK. Breast and cervical cancer screening interventions: an assessment of the literature. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1998; 7: 951–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  76. ↵
    Marcus AC, Crane LA. A review of cervical cancer screening intervention research: implications for public health programs and future research. Prev Med 1998; 27: 13–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    Cervical cancer screening. The Pap smear. Summary of an NIH consensus statement. Br Med J 1980; 281: 1264–6.
  78. ↵
    Allen JD, Stoddard AM, Mays J, Sorensen G. Promoting breast and cervical cancer screening at the workplace: results from the Woman to Woman Study. Am J Public Health 2001; 91: 584–90.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  79. ↵
    Paskett ED, Tatum CM, D’Agostino R, et al. Community-based interventions to improve breast and cervical cancer screening: results of the Forsyth County Cancer Screening (FoCaS) Project. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999; 8: 453–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. ↵
    Suarez L, Roche RA, Pulley L, Weiss NS, Goldman D, Simpson DM. Why a peer intervention program for Mexican-American women failed to modify the secular trend in cancer screening. Am J Prev Med 1997; 13: 411–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  81. ↵
    Jenkins CN, McPhee SJ, Bird JA, et al. Effect of a media-led education campaign on breast and cervical cancer screening among Vietnamese-American women. Prev Med 1999; 28: 395–406.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. ↵
    Bird JA, McPhee SJ, Ha NT, Le B, Davis T, Jenkins CN. Opening pathways to cancer screening for Vietnamese-American women: lay health workers hold a key. Prev Med 1998; 27: 821–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. Margolis KL, Lurie N, McGovern PG, Tyrrell M, Slater JS. Increasing breast and cervical cancer screening in low-income women. J Gen Intern Med 1998; 13: 515–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    Navarro AM, Senn KL, McNicholas LJ, Kaplan RM, Roppe B, Campo MC. Por La Vida model intervention enhances use of cancer screening tests among Latinas. Am J Prev Med 1998; 15: 32–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    Burack RC, Gimotty PA, George J, et al. How reminders given to patients and physicians affected Pap smear use in a health maintenance organization: results of a randomized controlled trial. Cancer 1998; 82: 2391–400.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. ↵
    Binstock MA, Geiger AM, Hackett JR, Yao JF. Pap smear outreach: a randomized controlled trial in an HMO. Am J Prev Med 1997; 13: 425–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  87. ↵
    Sung JF, Blumenthal DS, Coates RJ, Williams JE, Alema-Mensah E, Liff JM. Effect of a cancer screening intervention conducted by lay health workers among inner-city women. Am J Prev Med 1997; 13: 51–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  88. ↵
    Dignan M, Michielutte R, Blinson K, et al. Effectiveness of health education to increase screening for cervical cancer among eastern-band Cherokee Indian women in North Carolina. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 88: 1670–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  89. ↵
    Yancey AK, Tanjasiri SP, Klein M, Tunder J. Increased cancer screening behavior in women of color by culturally sensitive video exposure. Prev Med 1995; 24: 142–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    Gonzales JJ, Ranney J, West J. Nurse-initiated health promotion prompting system in an internal medicine residents’ clinic. South Med J 1989; 82: 342–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  91. ↵
    Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994; 309: 1286–91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. ↵
    Cardozo LJ, Steinberg J, Lepczyk MB, Binns-Emerick L, Cardozo Y, Aranha AN. Improving preventive health care in a medical resident practice. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 261–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  93. ↵
    Cheney C, Ramsdell JW. Effect of medical records’ checklists on implementation of periodic health measures. Am J Med 1987; 83: 129–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. ↵
    Clementz GL, Aldag JC, Gladfelter TT, Barclay AM, Brooks HF. A randomized study of cancer screening in a family practice setting using a recall model. J Fam Pract 1990; 30: 537–41.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  95. ↵
    Cowan JA, Heckerling PS, Parker JB. Effect of a fact sheet reminder on performance of the periodic health examination: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med 1992; 8: 104–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  96. ↵
    Dickey LL, Petitti D. A patient-held mini record to promote adult preventive care. J Fam Pract 1992; 34: 457–63.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  97. ↵
    Dietrich AJ, O’Connor GT, Keller A, Carney PA, Levy D, Whaley FS. Cancer: improving early detection and prevention. A community practice randomised trial. BMJ 1992; 304: 687–91.
  98. ↵
    Dietrich AJ, Tobin JN, Sox CH, et al. Cancer early-detection services in community health centers for the underserved. A randomized controlled trial. Arch Fam Med 1998; 7: 320–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. ↵
    Gemson DH, Ashford AR, Dickey LL, et al. Putting prevention into practice. Impact of a multifaceted physician education program on preventive services in the inner city. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 2210–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. ↵
    Gotay CC, Banner RO, Matsunaga DS, et al. Impact of a culturally appropriate intervention on breast and cervical screening among native Hawaiian women. Prev Med 2000; 31: 529–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. ↵
    Hillman AL, Ripley K, Goldfarb N, Nuamah I, Weiner J, Lusk E. Physician financial incentives and feedback: failure to increase cancer screening in Medicaid managed care. Am J Prev Med 1998; 88: 1699–701.
    OpenUrl
  102. ↵
    Kreuter MW, Strecher VJ. Do tailored behavior change messages enhance the effectiveness of health risk appraisal? Results from a randomized trial. Health Educ Res 1996; 11: 97–105.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  103. ↵
    Lantz PM, Stencil D, Lippert MT, Beversdorf S, Jaros L, Remington PL. Breast and cervical cancer screening in a low-income managed care sample: the efficacy of physician letters and phone calls. Am J Public Health 1995; 85: 834–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. ↵
    Litzelman DK, Dittus RS, Miller ME, Tierney WM. Requiring physicians to respond to computerized reminders improves their compliance with preventive care protocols. J Gen Intern Med 1993; 8: 311–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  105. ↵
    Mandelblatt J, Traxler M, Lakin P, et al. A nurse practitioner intervention to increase breast and cervical cancer screening for poor, elderly black women. The Harlem Study Team. J Gen Intern Med 1993; 8: 173–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. ↵
    Manfredi C, Czaja R, Freels S, Trubitt M, Warnecke R, Lacey L. Prescribe for health. Improving cancer screening in physician practices serving low-income and minority populations. Arch Fam Med 1998; 7: 329–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. ↵
    McDonald CJ, Hui SL, Smith DM, et al. Reminders to physicians from an introspective computer medical record. A two-year randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 1984; 100: 130–8.
  108. ↵
    McPhee SJ, Bird JA, Jenkins CN, Fordham D. Promoting cancer screening. A randomized, controlled trial of three interventions. Arch Intern Med 1989; 149: 1866–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  109. ↵
    McPhee SJ, Bird JA, Fordham D, Rodnick JE, Osborn EH. Promoting cancer prevention activities by primary care physicians. Results of a randomized, controlled trial. JAMA 1991; 266: 538–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. Melnikow J, Kohatsu ND, Chan BK. Put prevention into practice: a controlled evaluation. Am J Public Health 2000; 90: 1622–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  111. ↵
    Ornstein SM, Garr DR, Jenkins RG, Rust PF, Arnon A. Computer-generated physician and patient reminders. Tools to improve population adherence to selected preventive services. J Fam Pract 1991; 32: 82–90.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  112. Reding DJ, Lappe KA, Krueger M, Kolehouse BL, Steneil D, Leer RA. Cancer screening and prevention in rural Wisconsin: the Greater Marshfield experience. Wis Med J 1997; 96: 32–7.
    OpenUrl
  113. ↵
    Rimer BK, Conaway M, Lyna P, et al. The impact of tailored interventions on a community health center population. Patient Educ Couns 1999; 37: 125–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. ↵
    Robie PW. Improving and sustaining outpatient cancer screening by medicine residents. South Med J 1988; 81: 902–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  115. ↵
    Schreiner DT, Petrusa ER, Rettie CS, Kluge RM. Improving compliance with preventive medicine procedures in a house staff training program. South Med J 1988; 81: 1553–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  116. ↵
    Somkin CP, Hiatt RA, Hurley LB, Gruskin E, Ackerson L, Larson P. The effect of patient and provider reminders on mammography and Papanicolaou smear screening in large health maintenance organization. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 1658–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  117. ↵
    Sox CH, Dietrich AJ, Goldman DC, Provost EM. Improved access to women’s health services for Alaska natives through community health aide training. J Community Health 1999; 24: 313–23.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  118. ↵
    Tape TG, Campbell JR. Computerized medical records and preventive health care: success depends on many factors. Am J Med 1993; 94: 619–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  119. ↵
    Tierney WM, Hui SL, McDonald CJ. Delayed feedback of physician performance versus immediate reminders to perform preventive care. Effects on physician compliance. Med Care 1986; 24: 659–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. ↵
    Turner RC, Waivers LE, O’Brien K. The effect of patient-carried reminder cards on the performance of health maintenance measures. Arch Intern Med 1990; 150: 645–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  121. ↵
    Turner BJ, Day SC, Borenstein B. A controlled trial to improve delivery of preventive care: physician or patient reminders? J Gen Intern Med 1989; 4: 403–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  122. ↵
    Whitman S, Lacey L, Ansell D, Dell J, Chen E, Phillips CW. An intervention to increase breast and cervical cancer screening in low-income African-American women. Fam Community Health 1994; 17: 56–63.
    OpenUrl
  123. ↵
    Williams RB, Boles M, Johnson RE. A patient-initiated system for preventive health care: a randomized trial in community-based primary care practices. Arch Fam Med 1998; 7: 338–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  124. ↵
    Becker DM, Gomez EB, Kaiser DL, Yoshihasi A, Hodge RH Jr. Improving preventive care at a medical clinic: how can the patient help? Am J Prev Med 1989; 5: 353–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  125. ↵
    Fineberg MV, Funkhouser AR, Marks M. Variation in medical practice: A review of the literature. In: Eisenberg JM, editor. Doctors’ decisions and the cost of medical care. The reasons for doctors’ practice patterns and ways to change. Ann Arbor: Health Administration Press, 1986: 137–38.
  126. ↵
    Brownstein JN, Cheal N, Ackermann SP, Bassford TL, Campos-Outcalt D. Breast and cervical cancer screening in minority populations: a model for using lay health educators. J Cancer Educ 1992; 7: 321–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  127. ↵
    Tatum C, Wilson A, Dignan M, Paskett ED, Velez R. Development and implementation of outreach strategies for breast and cervical cancer prevention among African American women. FoCaS Project. Forsyth County Cancer Screening. J Cancer Educ 1997; 12: 43–50.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  128. ↵
    Mandelblatt J, Freeman H, Winczewski D, et al. Implementation of a breast and cervical cancer screening program in a public hospital emergency department. Cancer Control Center of Harlem. Ann Emerg Med 1996; 28: 493–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  129. ↵
    Doyle JP, Parker RM, Jacobson TA, McNagny SE. Breast and cervical cancer screening in an inner-city medical walk-in clinic: taking advantage of an often missed opportunity. Am J Prev Med 1996; 12: 345–50.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  130. ↵
    Holschneider CH, Felix JC, Satmary W, Johnson MT, Sandweiss LM, Montz FJ. A single-visit cervical carcinoma prevention program offered at an inner city church. A pilot project. Cancer 1999; 86: 2659–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  131. ↵
    Mandelblatt J, Freeman H, Winczewski D, et al. The costs and effects of cervical cancer screening in a public hospital emergency room. The Cancer Control Center of Harlem. Am J Public Health 1997; 87: 1182–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  132. ↵
    Yabroff KR, Mandelblatt JS. Interventions targeted toward patients to increase mammography use. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999; 8: 749–57.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  133. ↵
    Mandelblatt JS, Yabroff KR. Effectiveness of interventions designed to increase mammography use: a meta-analysis of provider-targeted strategies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999; 8: 759–67.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  134. ↵
    Paskett ED, Tatum CM, Mack DW, Hoen H, Case LD, Velez R. Validation of self-reported breast and cervical cancer screening tests among low-income minority women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1996; 5: 721–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  135. Sawyer JA, Earp JA, Fletcher RH, Daye FF, Wynn TM. Accuracy of women’s self-report of their last Pap smear. Am J Public Health 1989; 79: 1036–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  136. Etzi S, Lane DS, Grimson R. The use of mammography vans by low-income women: the accuracy of self-reports. Am J Public Health 1994; 84: 107–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  137. Suarez L, Goldman DA, Weiss NS. Validity of Pap smear and mammogram self-reports in a low-income Hispanic population. Am J Prev Med 1995; 11: 94–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  138. Gordon NP, Hiatt RA, Lampert DI. Concordance of self-reported data and medical record audit for six cancer screening procedures. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 566–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  139. ↵
    Divine GW, Brown JT, Frazier LM. The unit of analysis error in studies about physicians’ patient care behavior. J Gen Intern Med 1992; 7: 623–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section