|Grant Number:||3R01CA105786-05S1 Interpret this number|
|Primary Investigator:||Rimer, Barbara|
|Organization:||Univ Of North Carolina Chapel Hill|
|Project Title:||Finding the M.i.n.c. for Mammography Maintenance|
DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Data from the 2000 NHIS show that only about half the age-eligible women in the U.S. are in maintenance for mammography--getting regular mammograms. Regular mammography use is required to reduce the population burden of breast cancer, resulting in earlier detection of breast cancer and lower disease mortality. We aim to increase maintenance among 4040 initially adherent women who are members of the North Carolina Teachers' and State Employees' Comprehensive Major Medical Plan (SHP), a very large population of women, representing women of diverse occupations and backgrounds. The SHP is administered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina (BCBSNC), which also was the administrator of the health plans that were part of the study on which this one is built-- PRISM, Personally Relevant Information about Screening Mammography. The proposed research is PRISM2. Our goal is to identify the M.I.N.C., Minimum Intervention Needed for Change. We propose to refine an adaptive intervention system, based on our previous work using stepped care models and tailored interventions. Following the adaptive model, all women annually will receive one of three kinds of mammography reminders--Usual Care, which represents the kinds of reminders women usually receive, compared to Enhanced Letter or Automated Telephone Reminders based on persuasive communication principles and designed to increase the efficacy of reminders by treating them as brief persuasive communications. Women who do not respond to these brief interventions within 6 months in any intervention year will receive step 2, a brief telephone counseling intervention that focuses either on overcoming barriers or supplementing this by encouraging women to also elaborate either on the positive consequences of getting mammograms or the negative consequences of not getting them. A control condition for the call will help us assess the incremental impact of telephone counseling following reminders. We will conduct baseline telephone interviews prior to intervention and follow-up interviews by telephone 12, 24, 36 and 48 months from first reminders. We are working at the level of both individual women and SHP. We hypothesize that enhanced reminders will be more likely to lead to adherence and maintenance than usual care reminders. Women who receive barriers calls with elaboration of consequences will be most likely to return to adherence. Our interventions are informed by the Health Belief Model, Theory of Reasoned Action, Model of Goal- Directed Behavior and theories appropriate to study maintenance as well as the Elaboration Likelihood Model, a theory that addresses how people process health information. Understanding both behavioral processes and information processing is important. We have a highly experienced team of researchers and support staff at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University and an outstanding group of consultants and collaborators. This research has the potential to dramatically increase mammography maintenance. We have designed for dissemination so that, if effective, the interventions will be adopted.
Tables or bar graphs? Presenting test results in electronic medical records.
Authors: Brewer NT, Gilkey MB, Lillie SE, Hesse BW, Sheridan SL
Source: Med Decis Making, 2012 Jul-Aug;32(4), p. 545-53.
EPub date: 2012 Apr 3.
Influence of false-positive mammography results on subsequent screening: do physician recommendations buffer negative effects?
Authors: DeFrank JT, Rimer BK, Bowling JM, Earp JA, Breslau ES, Brewer NT
Source: J Med Screen, 2012 Mar;19(1), p. 35-41.
It's the amount of thought that counts: when ambivalence contributes to mammography screening delay.
Authors: O'Neill SC, Lipkus IM, Gierisch JM, Rimer BK, Bowling JM
Source: Womens Health Issues, 2012 Mar;22(2), p. e189-94.
EPub date: 2011 Nov 3.
Finding the minimal intervention needed for sustained mammography adherence.
Authors: Gierisch JM, DeFrank JT, Bowling JM, Rimer BK, Matuszewski JM, Farrell D, Skinner CS
Source: Am J Prev Med, 2010 Oct;39(4), p. 334-44.
Standard definitions of adherence for infrequent yet repeated health behaviors.
Authors: Gierisch JM, Reiter PL, Rimer BK, Brewer NT
Source: Am J Health Behav, 2010 Nov-Dec;34(6), p. 669-79.
Longitudinal predictors of nonadherence to maintenance of mammography.
Authors: Gierisch JM, Earp JA, Brewer NT, Rimer BK
Source: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2010 Apr;19(4), p. 1103-11.
EPub date: 2010 Mar 30.
Factors associated with annual-interval mammography for women in their 40s.
Authors: Gierisch JM, O'Neill SC, Rimer BK, DeFrank JT, Bowling JM, Skinner CS
Source: Cancer Epidemiol, 2009 Jul;33(1), p. 72-8.
EPub date: 2009 May 29.
Impact of mailed and automated telephone reminders on receipt of repeat mammograms: a randomized controlled trial.
Authors: DeFrank JT, Rimer BK, Gierisch JM, Bowling JM, Farrell D, Skinner CS
Source: Am J Prev Med, 2009 Jun;36(6), p. 459-67.
EPub date: 2009 Apr 11.
Intentions to maintain adherence to mammography.
Authors: O'Neill SC, Bowling JM, Brewer NT, Lipkus IM, Skinner CS, Strigo TS, Rimer BK
Source: J Womens Health (Larchmt), 2008 Sep;17(7), p. 1133-41.
Triangulating differential nonresponse by race in a telephone survey.
Authors: DeFrank JT, Bowling JM, Rimer BK, Gierisch JM, Skinner CS
Source: Prev Chronic Dis, 2007 Jul;4(3), p. A60.
EPub date: 2007 Jun 15.
Public education and cancer control.
Authors: Rimer BK, Gierisch JM
Source: Semin Oncol Nurs, 2005 Nov;21(4), p. 286-95.
Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening?
Authors: Rimer BK, Briss PA, Zeller PK, Chan EC, Woolf SH
Source: Cancer, 2004 Sep 1;101(5 Suppl), p. 1214-28.