The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an invitation letter on cervical screening participation among unscreened women 30 to 69 years of age.
Methods:
A cluster randomized trial design was used in which unscreened women (n=31,452) were randomized by the forward sortation area (FSA) of their postal code to an intervention group that was sent an invitation letter (n=17,068) or a group that was not sent an invitation letter (n=14,384).
Results:
Six months after the letters were mailed, 1,010 women in the intervention group (5.92%) and 441 women in the control group (3.06%) had a Pap test. After adjusting for variables that have previously shown to influence screening participation, women who were sent an invitation letter were significantly more likely to have had a Pap test in the next 6 months compared with women who were not sent an invitation letter (odds ratio [OR]=2.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.09–3.35, p<0.001). Overall, the effectiveness of the invitation letter improved with increasing age (p=0.02).
Conclusions:
Sending invitation letters increased cervical screening participation but because the overall effect was small, additional strategies that remove barriers to screening for unscreened women are also necessary.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Monitoring Program Performance Working Group and Data Group, Pan-Canadian Cervical Screening Initiative. Cervical cancer screening in Canada. Monitoring program performance. Toronto, ON: The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, 2011.
2.
Health Canada. Cervical cancer screening in Canada: 1998 surveillance report. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2002.
3.
WoltmanKJ, NewboldKB. Immigrant women and cervical cancer screening uptake. Can J Public Health, 2007; 98,6:470–475.
4.
FylanF. Screening for cervical cancer: A review of women's attitudes, knowledge, and behaviour. Br J General Practice, 1998; 48:1509–1514.
5.
Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Recommendations for client and provider-directed interventions to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. Am J Prev Med, 2008; 35:S21–S25.
6.
PatnickJ. Cervical cancer screening in England. Eur J Cancer, 2000; 36:2205–2208.
7.
HakamaM, ChamberlainJ, DayNE, MillerAB, ProrokPC. Evaluation of screening programmes for gynaecological cancer. Br J Cancer, 1985; 52:669–673.
8.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. Handbooks of cancer prevention: Cervix cancer screening. 10. Lyon, France: IARC, 2005.
9.
MitchellH, HirstS, CockburnJ, ReadingDJ, StaplesMP, MedleyG. Cervical cancer screening: A comparison of recruitment strategies among older women. Med J Aust., 1991; 155:575–580.
DeckerKM, DemersA, ChateauDet al.Papanicolaou test utilization and frequency of screening opportunities among women diagnosed with cervical cancer. Open Medicine, 2009; 3:140–147.
12.
CancerCareManitoba. New Screening Guidelines. 2013. http://www.cancercare.mb.ca/home/prevention_and_screening/professional_screening_programs/cervical_cancer_screening/new_screening_guidelines
13.
DemersA, HarrisonM, MustoG, DeckerKM, LotockiR. Cervical cancer and Pap test utilization in Manitoba, 1970–1999. Winnipeg, Manitoba: CancerCare Manitoba, 2003.
14.
AndersenRM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: Does it matter?J Health Social Behav, 1995; 36:1–10.
15.
PhillipsKA, MorrisonKR, AndersenR, AdayLA. Understanding the context of healthcare utilization: Assessing environmental and provider-related variables in the behaviour model of utilization. Health Serv Res, 1998; 33:571–596.
16.
AndersenR. National health surveys and the behavioral model of health services use. Med Care, 2008; 46:647–653.
17.
The John Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Health Services Research and Development Center. The John Hopkins ACG case-mix system version 6.0 release notes. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University, 2003.
18.
MartensP, FransooR, BurlandEet al.What works? A first look at evaluating Manitoba's regional health programs and policies at the population level. Winnipeg, MB: Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, 2008.
19.
JohnstonGM, BoydCJ, MacIssacMA, RhodesJW, GrimshawRN. Effectiveness of letters to Cape Breton women who have not had a recent Pap smear. Chronic Dis Can, 2003; 23:49–56.
20.
McDougallL, LinehanM. Personal communication - cervical cancer screening invitation letters in Calgary, 2011.
21.
Statistics Canada. Canadian Community Health Survey 3.1. http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca.proxy2.lib.umanitoba.ca2009
22.
WardleJ, McCafferyK, NadelM, AtkinW. Socioeconomic differences in cancer screening participation: Comparing cognitive and psychosocial explanations. Soc Sci Med, 2004; 59:249–261.
23.
NiederdeppeJ, LevyAG. Fatalistic beliefs about cancer prevention and three prevention behaviors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2007; 16:998–1003.
24.
KatzS, HoferTP. Socioeconomic disparities in preventive care persist despite universal coverage. JAMA, 1994; 272:530–534.
25.
MartensP, BartlettJ, BurlandEet al.Profile of Métis health status and healthcare utilization in Manitoba: A population-based study. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Manitoba Center for Health Policy and the Manitoba Métis Federation Inc., 2010.
26.
MartensPJ, ChochinovHM, PriorHJ, FransooR, BurlandE. The Need to Know Team. Are cervical cancer screening rates different for women with schizophrenia? A Manitoba population-based study. Schizophr Res, 2009; 113:101–106.
27.
AmankwahE, NgwakongnwiE, QuanH. Why many visible minority women in Canada do not participate in cervical cancer screening. Ethn Health, 2009; 14:337–349.
28.
GuptaA, KumarA, StewartDE. Cervical cancer screening among South Asian women in Canada: The role of education and acculturation. Health Care Women Int, 2002; 23:123–134.
29.
GuptaS, RoosLL, WalldR, TraverseD, DahlM. Delivering equitable care: Comparing preventive services in Manitoba. Am J Public Health, 2003; 93:2086–2092.
30.
LoftersAK, MoineddinR, HwangSW, GlazierRH. Low rates of cervical cancer screening among urban immigrants. A population-based study in Ontario, Canada. Med Care, 2010; 48:611–618.
31.
QuanH, FongA, De CosterCet al.Variation in health services utilization among ethnic populations. Can Med Assoc J, 2006; 174:787–791.
32.
MaxwellCJ, BancejCM, SniderJ, VikSA. Factors important in promoting cervical cancer screening among Canadian women: Findings from the 1996–1997 national population health survey (NPHS)Can J Public Health, 2001; 92:127–133.
33.
AckersonK, GretebeckK. Factors influencing cancer screening practices of underserved women. J Am Acad Nurse Pract, 2007; 19:591–601.
34.
CohenSS, PalmieriRT, NyanteSJet al.Obesity and screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer in women. Cancer, 2008; 112:1892–1904.
35.
FransooR, MartensP, BurlandE. The Need to Know Team, Prior H, Burchill C. Manitoba RHA indicators atlas 2009. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, 2009.
36.
LixL, HindsA, DeverteuilG, RobinsonJR, WalkerJ, RoosLL. Residential mobility and severe mental illness: A population-based analysis. Adm Policy Ment Health, 2006; 33:160–171.
37.
BazarganM, BazarganSH, FarooqM, BakerRS. Correlates of cervical cancer screening among underserved Hispanic and African American women. Prev Med, 2004; 39:465–473.
38.
GrunfeldE. Cervical cancer: Screening hard-to-reach groups. Can Med Assoc J, 1997; 157:543–546.
39.
PampalonR, HamelD, GamacheP. A comparison of individual and area-based socio-economic data for monitoring social inequalities in health. Health Rep, 2009; 20:85–94.
40.
MustardCA, DerksenS, BerthelotJ-M, WolfsonM. Assessing ecologic proxies for household income: A comparison of household and neighourhood level income measures in the study of population health status. Health Place, 1999; 5:157–171.
41.
Lazcano-PonceE, LorinczAT, Cruz-ValdezAet al.Self-collection of vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer prevention (MARCH): A community-based randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2011; 378:1868–1873.
42.
SzarewskiA, CadmanL, MesherDet al.HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening - a randomised controlled trial. Br J Cancer, 2011; 104:915–920.
