Objective: To compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two reminding strategies addressed to women who did not respond to a first invitation to undergo cervical cancer screening. Study Design: A randomized study was carried out by a programme created in Alsace to organize cervical cancer screening. In total, 10,662 women who did not have a smear test 1 year after a first notice was sent, were randomly allocated to receive either a new letter with a reply coupon or a telephone call. The uptake of screening was measured using routine data. Efficacy and direct costs of the two methods were compared. Results: Uptake at 8 months was 6.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.6–7.0%] for telephone calls and 5.8% (95% CI 5.2–6.4%) for letters. The difference was not significant. More information was collected through telephone calls than by letters, but with less reliability. Furthermore, telephone calls were more costly. Conclusions: We found that in our region, a mail reminder was as effective as, and less expensive than, a telephone call; moreover, it was applicable to the whole population, including patients without a telephone.

Keywords:
Cervical cancer screening, Telephone, reminder, Mail, reminder
1.
Tacken MA, Braspenning JC, Hermens RP, et al: Uptake of cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands is mainly influenced by women’s beliefs about the screening and by the inviting organization. Eur J Public Health 2007;17:178–185.
2.
Buehler SK, Parsons WL: Effectiveness of a call/recall system in improving compliance with cervical cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ 1997;157:521–526.
3.
Johnston GM, Boyd CJ, MacIsaac MA, Rhodes JW, Grimshaw RN: Effectiveness of letters to Cape Breton women who have not had a recent Pap smear. Chronic Dis Can 2003;24:49–56.
4.
Rousseau A, Bohet P, Merlière J, Treppoz H, Heules-Bernin B, Ancelle-Park R: Evaluation du dépistage organisé et du dépistage individuel du cancer du col de l’utérus: utilité des données de l’Assurance maladie. Bull Epidemiol Hebdo 2002;19:81–83.
5.
Fender M, Schott J, Baldauf JJ, Muller J, Schlund E, Dellenbach P: EVE: une campagne régionale de dépistage du cancer du col de l’utérus. Organisation, résultats à 7 ans et perspectives. Presse Méd 2003;32:1545–1551.
6.
Aklimunnessa K, Mori M, Khan MM, et al: Effectiveness of cervical cancer screening over cervical cancer mortality among Japanese women. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2006;36:511–518.
7.
Waxman AG: Guidelines for cervical cancer screening: history and scientific rationale. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2005;48:77–97.
8.
Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, Allen E: Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ 1999;318:904–908.
9.
Gustafsson L, Adami HO: Cytologic screening for cancer of the uterine cervix in Sweden evaluated by identification and simulation. Br J Cancer 1990;61:903–908.
10.
Ponten J, Adami HO, Bergström R, et al: Strategies for global control of cervical cancer. Int J Cancer 1995;60:1–26.
11.
Lynge E, Clausen LB, Guignard R, Poll P: What happens when organization of cervical cancer screening is delayed or stopped? J Med Screen 2006;13:41–46.
12.
Nygard JF, Skare GB, Thoresen SO: The cervical cancer screening programme in Norway, 1992–2000: changes in Pap smear coverage and incidence of cervical cancer. J Med Screen 2002;9:86–91.
13.
Bergström R, Sparen P, Adami HO: Trends in cancer of the cervix uteri in Sweden following cytological screening. Br J Cancer 1999;81:159–166.
14.
Bos AB, Van Ballegooijen M, Van Gessel-Dabekaussen AA, Habbema JD: Organised cervical cancer screening still leads to higher coverage than spontaneous screening in The Netherlands. Eur J Cancer 1998;34:1598–1601.
15.
Sigurdsson K: Effect of organized screening on the risk of cervical cancer. Evaluation of screening activity in Iceland, 1964–1991. Int J Cancer 1993;54:563–570.
16.
Lynge E, Madsen M, Engholm G: Effect of organized screening on incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in Denmark. Cancer Res 1989;49:2157–2160.
17.
Nieminen P, Kallio M, Anttila A, Hakama M: Organised vs spontaneous Pap smear screening for cervical cancer: a case-control study. Int J Cancer 1999;83:55–58.
18.
Cahier des charges du dépistage organisé du cancer du col de l’utérus. Direction Générale de la Santé, Décembre 2006. www.sante.gouv.fr/htm/dossiers/cancer_uterus/cctp.pdf (accessed October 2, 2009).
19.
Adami HO, Ponten J, Sparen P, Bergström R, Gustafsson L, Friberg LG: Survival trend after invasive cervical cancer diagnosis in Sweden before and after cytologic screening. 1960–1984. Cancer 1994;73:140–147.
20.
Duport N, Haguenoer K, Ancelle-Park R, Bloch J: Evaluation épidémiologique des quatre départements ‘pilotes’. Institut de Veille Sanitaire, June 2007. www.invs.sante.fr/publications (accessed October 2, 2009).
21.
Tseng DS, Cox E, Plane MB, Hla KM: Efficacy of patient letter reminders on cervical screening: a meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16:563–568.
22.
Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques: Enquêtes annuelles de recensement 2004 à 2006 – exploitation principale. www.insee.fr/fr/bases-de-donnees (accessed October 2, 2009).
23.
Stein K, Lewendon G, Jenkins R, Davis C: Improving uptake of cervical cancer screening in women with prolonged history of non-attendance for screening: a randomized trial of enhanced invitation methods. J Med Screen 2005;12:185–189.
24.
Oscarsson MG, Benzein EG, Wijma BE, Carlsson PG: Promotion of cervical screening among nonattendees: a partial cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur J Cancer Prev 2007;16:559–563.
25.
Piana L, Leandri FX, Jacqueme B, et al: Le dépistage organisé des cancers du col utérin pour les femmes en situation médicosociale défavorisée. Campagnes expérimentales du département des Bouches-du-Rhône. Bull Cancer 2007;94:1–7.
26.
Richardson A, Williams S, Elwood M, Bahr M, Medlicott T: Participation in breast cancer screening: randomised controlled trials of doctors’ letters and of telephone reminders. Aust J Public Health 1994;18:290–292.
27.
Page A, Morrell S, Chiu C, Taylor R, Tewson R: Recruitment to mammography screening: a randomised trial and meta-analysis of invitation letters and telephone calls. Aust NZ J Public Health 2006;30:111–118.
28.
Eaker S, Adami HO, Granath F, Wilander E, Sparen P: A large population based randomized controlled trial to increase attendance at screening for cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13:346–354.
29.
Miller SM, Siejak KK, Schroeder CM, Lerman C, Hernandez E, Helm CW: Enhancing adherence following abnormal Pap smears among low-income minority women: a preventive telephone counseling strategy. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:703–708.
30.
Luckmann R, Savageau JA, Clemow L, Stoddard AM, Costanza ME: A randomized trial of telephone counseling to promote screening mammography in two HMOs. Cancer Detect Prev 2003;27:442–450.
31.
Basch CE, Wolf RL, Brouse CH, et al: Telephone outreach to increase colorectal cancer screening in an urban minority population. Am J Public Health 2006;96:2246–2253.
32.
Taplin SH, Barlow WE, Ludman E, et al: Testing reminder and motivational telephone calls to increase screening mammography: a randomized study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:233–242.
33.
Vinker S, Nakar S, Rosenberg E, Kitai E: The role of family physicians in increasing annual fecal occult blood test screening coverage: a prospective intervention study. Isr Med Assoc J 2002;4:424–425.
34.
Davis NA, Nash E, Bailey C, Lewis MJ, Rimer BK, Koplan JP: Evaluation of three methods for improving mammography rates in a managed care plan. Am J Prev Med 1997;13:298–302.
35.
Bais AG, van Kemenade FJ, Berkhof J, et al: Human papillomavirus testing on self-sampled cervicovaginal brushes: an effective alternative to protect nonresponders in cervical cancer screening programs. Int J Cancer 2007;120:1505–1510.
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
2011
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.