Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Mailed Letter Versus Phone Call to Increase Uptake of Cancer Screening: A Pragmatic, Randomized Trial

Tara Kiran, Sam Davie, Rahim Moineddin and Aisha Lofters
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine November 2018, 31 (6) 857-868; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2018.06.170369
Tara Kiran
From Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario (TK, AL); Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (TK, SD, AL); Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 Toronto, Ontario (TK, RM, AL); Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (TK, RM, AL); Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, Ontario (RM, AL).
MD, MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sam Davie
From Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario (TK, AL); Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (TK, SD, AL); Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 Toronto, Ontario (TK, RM, AL); Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (TK, RM, AL); Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, Ontario (RM, AL).
MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rahim Moineddin
From Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario (TK, AL); Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (TK, SD, AL); Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 Toronto, Ontario (TK, RM, AL); Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (TK, RM, AL); Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, Ontario (RM, AL).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aisha Lofters
From Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario (TK, AL); Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (TK, SD, AL); Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 Toronto, Ontario (TK, RM, AL); Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (TK, RM, AL); Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, Ontario (RM, AL).
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: There is good evidence that cancer-specific patient outreach improves rates of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening. However, it is unclear how primary care practices should implement integrated outreach for all 3 types of cancer screening. We aimed to understand whether integrated outreach using mailed letters or phone calls were more effective at increasing screening uptake in a primary care organization.

Method: We conducted a pragmatic randomized trial comparing outreach by mailed letter or personalized phone call for patients overdue for cervical, breast, or colorectal cancer screening. The study was conducted at 6 clinics within an academic primary care organization in Toronto, Canada. Our primary outcome was an uptake of at least 1 screening test for which the patient was overdue. Our primary analysis was an intention-to-treat, unadjusted comparison of proportions, using a χ2 test. We also compared costs per additional patient screened. All analyses were stratified by sex.

Results: A total of 3733 females and 1537 males were randomized to receive 1 of the interventions. Among women, 33.0% allocated to receive a reminder letter and 41.2% allocated to receive a reminder phone call received at least 1 screening test for which they were due (absolute difference, 8.1%; 95% CI, 5.1%–11.2%, P < .001). Among men, 24.8% allocated to receive a reminder letter and 28.8% allocated to a reminder phone call received screening for colorectal cancer (absolute difference, 4.1%; 95% CI, −0.4% to 8.5%, P = .073). For women and men, the letters cost approximately CaD $5.07 and CaD $7.16, respectively, for each completed screening test compared with CaD $8.71 and CaD $12.00 for the phone calls.

Conclusions: Phone calls were more effective than mailed letters at increasing uptake for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening among women. However, phone calls were more expensive than letters. Primary care practices should consider integrating phone call reminders into their practice, possibly as part of a targeted or staged approach to outreach for cancer screening.

  • Breast Cancer
  • Canada
  • Cervical Cancer
  • Colorectal Cancer
  • Early Detection of Cancer
  • Intention to Treat Analysis
  • Primary Health Care
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family  Medicine: 31 (6)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 31, Issue 6
November-December 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Mailed Letter Versus Phone Call to Increase Uptake of Cancer Screening: A Pragmatic, Randomized Trial
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Mailed Letter Versus Phone Call to Increase Uptake of Cancer Screening: A Pragmatic, Randomized Trial
Tara Kiran, Sam Davie, Rahim Moineddin, Aisha Lofters
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2018, 31 (6) 857-868; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2018.06.170369

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Mailed Letter Versus Phone Call to Increase Uptake of Cancer Screening: A Pragmatic, Randomized Trial
Tara Kiran, Sam Davie, Rahim Moineddin, Aisha Lofters
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2018, 31 (6) 857-868; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2018.06.170369
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Study Context and Rationale
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Appendix A: Phone Call Procedure
    • Appendix B: Phone Script and Preparation
    • Appendix C: Letter
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Recommandations pour des soins preventifs pour promouvoir lequite en matiere de sante
  • Preventive care recommendations to promote health equity
  • Feasibility of a multifaceted implementation intervention to improve attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening in primary care in Ireland: a cluster randomised pilot trial
  • Practice-based Research Network (PBRN) Engagement: 20+ Years and Counting
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Evaluating Pragmatism of Lung Cancer Screening Randomized Trials with the PRECIS-2 Tool
  • Perceptions and Preferences for Defining Biosimilar Products in Prescription Drug Promotion
  • Successful Implementation of Integrated Behavioral Health
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Breast Cancer
  • Canada
  • Cervical Cancer
  • Colorectal Cancer
  • Early Detection of Cancer
  • Intention to Treat Analysis
  • Primary Health Care

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire