Introduction
Although mammography is the most effective early detection breast cancer screening
technology available, it is underutilized. This study was conducted to test the effectiveness
of a loss-framed minimal intervention to increase mammography use. Loss-frame refers to a communication strategy in which messages are framed from the perspective
of what a person has to lose by not taking a particular behavioral action.
Methods
Participants were medically un- and underinsured women 50–64 years old who called
one of two urban clinics randomly selected based on demographic statistical equivalency.
The women who participated telephoned to inquire about a mammogram during the 6-month
study period. The group randomly designated as the experimental group received a loss-framed
message conveyed by trained staff telephonically. Members of the comparison group
received the “usual” communication, also conveyed telephonically. In the experimental
group, 31 of 112 (27%) women who inquired received mammograms, whereas 157 of the
992 (16%) comparison group women who inquired received mammograms.
Results
The odds of a mammogram, adjusted for race and breast cancer symptoms, significantly
increased for the experimental (odds ratio [OR] = 1.914, χ2 = 7.48, p = .0063, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20–3.05) versus comparison group.
Conclusions
A loss-framed, in-reach, minimal intervention approach holds promise as a mammography
promotion strategy.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Women's Health IssuesAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Evaluation of a loss-framed minimal intervention to increase mammography utilization among medically un- and under-insured women.Cancer Detection and Prevention. 2002; 6: 394-400
- Cancer facts and figures. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA2001: 1-39
- The effects of message framing on mammography utilization.Health Psychology. 1995; 14: 178-184
- Self-administered interventions.Health Education Research. 1997; 12: 531-545
- The Purdue stepped approach model.Counseling Psychology. 1988; 16: 647-667
- The Purdue stepped approach model.International Quarterly of Community Health Education. 1989; 10: 19-37
- Mammographic screening.Cancer. 2004; 101: 496-507
- Community health education. (2nd ed). Aspen Publishing, Rockville, MD1989
- Changes in the use of screening mammography.American Journal of Public Health. 1994; 84: 62-67
- The simultaneous analysis of patient, physician and group practice influences on annual mammography performance.Social Science and Medicine. 1996; 43: 315-324
- Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand-McNally, Chicago1963
Cancer Control Program Review Group. (1998—modified). Available: www.cancer.gov
- The risk factors of age and family history and their relationship to screening mammography utilization.Journal of the American Geriatric Society. 1992; 40: 774-778
- Health and the media. McGraw-Hill, Sydney, Australia1993
- Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion intervention.American Journal of Public Health. 1999; 89: 1322-1327
- Recruitment to a university alcohol program.Preventive Medicine. 1995; 24: 348-356
- Factors associated with repeat adherence to breast cancer screening.Preventive Medicine. 1990; 19: 279-290
- Determinants of late stage diagnosis of breast and cervical cancer.American Journal of Public Health. 1991; 81: 646-649
- Mammography use helps to explain differences in breast cancer stage at diagnosis between older black and white women.Annals of Internal Medicine. 1998; 128: 729-736
- The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987; 52: 500-510
- Breast screening behavior and interactions with health care providers among lower income women.Medical Care. 1997; 35: 1204-1211
- Putting the risk of breast cancer in perspective.New England Journal of Medicine. 1999; 340: 141-144
- Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior.Psychological Bulletin. 1997; 121: 3-19
- Factors affecting participation in a mammography screening program among members of an urban Detroit health Maintenance organization.Cancer Detection and Prevention. 1998; 22: 30-38
- Underusers of mammogram screening.Preventive Medicine. 1998; 17: 531-558
- The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science. 1981; 211: 328-335
- SAS procedures guide. (3rd ed). SAS Institute, Cary, NC1990 (Version 6)
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC1997
- Stage at diagnosis in breast cancer.American Journal of Public Health. 1992; 82: 1383-1385
- Patterns of breast and cervical cancer screening at three public health centers in an inner-city urban area.American Journal of Public Health. 1991; 81: 1651-1653
Biography
Doris A. Abood, EdD, CHES, is an associate professor of Health Education/Health Promotion in the Department of Nutrition, Food & Exercise Sciences at Florida State University.
Biography
David R. Black, PhD, MPH, HSPP, CHES, CPPE, FASHA, FSBM, FAAHB is professor of Health Promotion and adjunct professor of Health Sciences Foods and Nutrition and Nursing at Purdue University.
Biography
Daniel C. Coster, PhD, is Associate Professor of Statistics and Assistant Department Head in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics at Utah State University.
Article info
Identification
Copyright
© 2005 Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
