Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • 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
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • 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

References

  1. 1.↵
    US Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations for primary care. Available from: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/recommendations. Published 2017. Accessed July 31, 2017.
  2. 2.↵
    Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Published guidelines. Available from: http://canadiantaskforce.ca/guidelines/published-guidelines/. Published XXXX. Accessed July 31, 2017.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Weller DP,
    2. Patnick J,
    3. McIntosh HM,
    4. Dietrich AJ
    . Uptake in cancer screening programmes. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:693–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. Brouwers MC,
    2. De Vito C,
    3. Bahirathan L,
    4. et al
    . What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? A systematic review. Implement Sci. 2011;6:111.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Community Preventive Services Task Force. CPSTF findings for cancer prevention and control. Available from: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/content/task-force-findings-cancer-prevention-and-control. Accessed Jul 31, 2017.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Espinas JA,
    2. Aliste L,
    3. Fernandez E,
    4. Argimon JM,
    5. Tresserras R,
    6. Borras JM
    . Narrowing the equity gap: the impact of organized versus opportunistic cancer screening in Catalonia (Spain). J Med Screen 2011;18:87–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Kiran T,
    2. Glazier RH,
    3. Moineddin R,
    4. Gu S,
    5. Wilton AS,
    6. Paszat L
    . The impact of a population-based screening program on income and immigration-related disparities in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26:1401–1410.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Phillips L,
    2. Hendren S,
    3. Humiston S,
    4. Winters P,
    5. Fiscella K
    . Improving breast and colon cancer screening rates: a comparison of letters, automated phone calls, or both. J Am Board Fam Med 2015;28:46–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Brouwers MC,
    2. De Vito C,
    3. Bahirathan L,
    4. et al
    . Effective interventions to facilitate the uptake of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: an implementation guideline. Implement Sci 2011;6:112.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Kiran T,
    2. Kopp A,
    3. Moineddin R,
    4. Glazier RH
    . Longitudinal evaluation of physician payment reform and team-based care for chronic disease management and prevention. CMAJ. 2015;187:E494–E502.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Kiran T,
    2. Wilton AS,
    3. Moineddin R,
    4. Paszat L,
    5. Glazier RH
    . Effect of payment incentives on cancer screening in Ontario primary care. Ann Fam Med 2014;12:317–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Feldman J,
    2. Davie S,
    3. Kiran T
    . Measuring and improving cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening rates in a multi-site urban practice in Toronto, Canada. BMJ Qual Improv Rep 2017;6:u213991.w5531.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Cancer Care Ontario. Letters to the public about cancer screening. Available from: https://www.cancercare.on.ca/pcs/screening/screeningletters/. Published March 2017. Accessed August 4, 2017.
  14. 14.↵
    1. Dhanji Z,
    2. Randall A
    . Cervical screening reminder calls pilot: utilizing EMRs to improve cancer screening. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:163.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Lofters A,
    2. Schuler A,
    3. Slater M,
    4. et al
    . Using self-reported data on the social determinants of health in primary care to identify cancer screening disparities: opportunities and challenges. BMC Fam Pract 2017;18:31.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    Cancer Care Ontario. Screening Resources for Healthcare Providers. Available from: https://www.cancercareontario.ca/en/guidelines-advice/cancer-continuum/screening/resources-healthcare-providers. Published 2017. Accessed April 11, 2017.
  17. 17.↵
    Cancer Care Ontario. Screening Activity Report Frequently Asked Questions. Available from: https://www.cancercare.on.ca/pcs/primcare/sar/sar_faq/. Published 2016. Accessed April 11, 2017.
  18. 18.↵
    Cancer Care Ontario. Ontario Breast Screening Program. Available from: https://www.cancercare.on.ca/pcs/screening/breastscreening/obsp/. Published 2017. Accessed July 31, 2017.
  19. 19.↵
    1. Tinmouth J,
    2. Baxter NN,
    3. Paszat LF,
    4. Rabeneck L,
    5. Sutradhar R,
    6. Yun L
    . Using physician-linked mailed invitations in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme: effectiveness and factors associated with response. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004494.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    Canadian Institute for Health Information. Trends in income-related health inequalities in Canada. Available from: https://www.cihi.ca/en/trends-in-income-related-health-inequalities-in-canada. Published November 2015. Accessed July 31, 2017.
  21. 21.↵
    1. Eaker S,
    2. Adami HO,
    3. Granath F,
    4. Wilander E,
    5. Sparen P
    . A large population-based randomized controlled trial to increase attendance at screening for cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13:346–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Hegenscheid K,
    2. Hoffmann W,
    3. Fochler S,
    4. et al
    . Telephone counseling and attendance in a national mammography-screening program a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med 2011;41:421–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Lairson DR,
    2. DiCarlo M,
    3. Myers RE,
    4. et al
    . Cost-effectiveness of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening use. Cancer 2008;112:779–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.↵
    1. Saywell RM Jr..,
    2. Champion VL,
    3. Skinner CS,
    4. Menon U,
    5. Daggy J
    . A cost-effectiveness comparison of three tailored interventions to increase mammography screening. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2004;13:909–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Liss DT,
    2. French DD,
    3. Buchanan DR,
    4. et al
    . Outreach for annual colorectal cancer screening: a budget impact analysis for community health centers. Am J Prev Med 2016;50:e54–e61.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Korownyk C,
    2. McCormack J,
    3. Kolber MR,
    4. Garrison S,
    5. Allan GM
    . Competing demands and opportunities in primary care. Can Fam Physician 2017;63:664–8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Neumann PJ,
    2. Cohen JT,
    3. Weinstein MC
    . Updating cost-effectiveness—the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med 2014;371:796–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    1. Baxter NN,
    2. Sutradhar R,
    3. Li Q,
    4. et al
    . Corrigendum: do primary care provider strategies improve patient participation in colorectal cancer screening? Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:622–32.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    1. Gardner MP,
    2. Adams A,
    3. Jeffreys M
    . Interventions to increase the uptake of mammography amongst low income women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013;8:e55574.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Han HR,
    2. Kim J,
    3. Lee JE,
    4. et al
    . Interventions that increase use of Pap tests among ethnic minority women: a meta-analysis. Psychooncology 2011;20:341–51.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Vogt TM,
    2. Glass A,
    3. Glasgow RE,
    4. La Chance PA,
    5. Lichtenstein E
    . The safety net: a cost-effective approach to improving breast and cervical cancer screening. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2003;12:789–98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    1. Fiscella K,
    2. Humiston S,
    3. Hendren S,
    4. et al
    . A multimodal intervention to promote mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a safety-net practice. J Natl Med Assoc 2011;103:762–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Muller D,
    2. Logan J,
    3. Dorr D,
    4. Mosen D
    . The effectiveness of a secure email reminder system for colorectal cancer screening. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2009;2009:457–461.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Baker DW,
    2. Brown T,
    3. Goldman SN,
    4. et al
    . Two-year follow-up of the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence to annual colorectal cancer screening in community health centers. Cancer Causes Control 2015;26:1685–90.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    1. Basch CE,
    2. Wolf RL,
    3. Brouse CH,
    4. et al
    . Telephone outreach to increase colorectal cancer screening in an urban minority population. Am J Public Health 2006;96:2246–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.↵
    1. Berkowitz SA,
    2. Percac-Lima S,
    3. Ashburner JM,
    4. et al
    . Building equity improvement into quality improvement: reducing socioeconomic disparities in colorectal cancer screening as part of population health management. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30:942–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Dietrich AJ,
    2. Tobin JN,
    3. Robinson CM,
    4. et al
    . Telephone outreach to increase colon cancer screening in Medicaid managed care organizations: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med 2013;11:335–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Glick SB,
    2. Clarke AR,
    3. Blanchard A,
    4. Whitaker AK
    . Cervical cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment interventions for racial and ethnic minorities: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:1016–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Baker DW,
    2. Brown T,
    3. Buchanan DR,
    4. et al
    . Comparative effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence to annual colorectal cancer screening in community health centers: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:1235–41.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    1. Honein-AbouHaidar GN,
    2. Rabeneck L,
    3. Paszat LF,
    4. Sutradhar R,
    5. Tinmouth J,
    6. Baxter NN
    . Evaluating the impact of public health initiatives on trends in fecal occult blood test participation in Ontario. BMC Cancer 2014;14:537.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Rabeneck L,
    2. Tinmouth JM,
    3. Paszat LF,
    4. et al
    . Ontario's ColonCancerCheck: results from Canada's first province-wide colorectal cancer screening program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:508–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE 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.
3 + 8 =
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

  • Associations Between Modifiable Preconception Care Indicators and Pregnancy Outcomes
  • Perceptions and Preferences for Defining Biosimilar Products in Prescription Drug Promotion
  • Evaluating Pragmatism of Lung Cancer Screening Randomized Trials with the PRECIS-2 Tool
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