RESULTS: Score reliabilities were good (CMLT-Listening: alpha=.84) to adequate (CMLT-Reading: alpha=.75). Scores on both CMLT tests were positively and significantly correlated with scores on the REALM, numeracy, cancer knowledge and the cognitive tests. Mean CMLT scores varied as predicted according to educational level, language spoken at home, self-rated health, self-reported reading, and self-rated ability to comprehend spoken information.

CONCLUSION: The psychometric findings for both tests are promising. Scores appear to be valid indicators of comprehension of spoken and written health messages about cancer prevention and screening.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The CMLT-Listening will facilitate research into comprehension of spoken health messages, and together with the CMLT-Reading will allow researchers to examine the unique contributions of listening and reading comprehension to health-related decisions and behaviors.

METHODS/DESIGN: This randomized study compares 3 arms: reminder letter alone; reminder letter plus reminder call; reminder letter plus a second reminder and booklet plus a counselor call. All calls provide women with the opportunity to schedule a mammogram in a reasonable time. The invention period will span 4 years and include repeat attempts. The counselor arm is designed to educate, motivate and counsel women in an effort to alleviate PCP burden.All women who have been in the healthcare plan for 24 months and who have a current primary care provider (PCP) and who are aged 51-84 are randomized to 1 of 3 arms. Interventions are limited to women who become >/=18 months from a prior mammogram. Women and their physicians may opt out of the intervention study.Measurement of completed mammograms will use plan billing records and clinic electronic records. The primary outcome is the proportion of women continuously enrolled for >/=24 months who have had >/=1 mammogram in the last 24 months. Secondary outcomes include the number of women who need repeat interventions. The cost effectiveness analysis will measure all costs from the provider perspective.

DISCUSSION: So far, 18,509 women aged 51-84 have been enrolled into our tracking database and were randomized into one of three arms. At baseline, 5,223 women were eligible for an intervention. We anticipate that the outcome will provide firm data about the maximal effectiveness as well as the cost effectiveness of the interventions both for increasing the mammography rate and the repeat mammography rate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov/NCT01332032.

METHODS: We used the Sentence Verification Technique to write items based on realistic health messages about cancer prevention and screening, including media messages, clinical encounters and clinical print materials. Items were reviewed, revised, and pre-tested. Adults aged 40-70 participated in a pilot administration in Georgia, Hawaii, and Massachusetts.

RESULTS: The Cancer Message Literacy Test-Listening is self-administered via touchscreen laptop computer. No reading is required. It takes approximately 1 hour. The Cancer Message Literacy Test-Reading is self-administered on paper. It takes approximately 10min.

CONCLUSIONS: These two new tests will allow researchers to assess comprehension of spoken health messages, to examine the relationship between listening and reading literacy, and to explore the impact of each form of literacy on health-related outcomes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Researchers and clinicians now have a means of measuring comprehension of spoken health information.

METHODS: Eligible men were invited by their primary care providers (PCPs) to participate. Those consenting received an educational booklet followed by CATC. The counselor assessed stage of readiness, reviewed booklet information, corrected knowledge deficits and helped with a values clarification exercise. The materials presented advantages and disadvantages of being screened and did not advocate for testing or for not testing. Outcome measures included changes in stage, decisional conflict, decisional satisfaction, perceived vulnerability and congruence of a PSA testing decision with a pros/cons score. Baseline and final surveys were administered by telephone.

RESULTS: There was an increase in PSA knowledge (p<0.001), and in decisional satisfaction (p<0.001), a decrease in decisional conflict (p<0.001), and a general consistency of those decisions with the man's values. Among those initially who had not made a decision, 83.1% made a decision by final survey with decisions equally for or against screening.

CONCLUSIONS: The intervention provides realistic, unbiased and effective decision support for men facing a difficult and confusing decision.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our intervention could potentially replace a discussion of PSA testing with the PCP for most men.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to pilot test an intervention for motivating overdue women to receive a mammogram.

METHODS: Subjects aged 45-79 without a mammogram in > or =27 months and enrolled in study practices were identified from claims data. The intervention included a mailed, educational booklet, computer-assisted barrier-specific tailored counseling and motivational interviewing, and facilitated, short-interval mammography scheduling.

RESULTS: Of 127 eligible women, 45 (35.4%) agreed to counseling and data collection. Most were > or =3 years overdue. Twenty-six (57.8%) of the counseled women got a mammogram within 12 months. Thirty-one (72.1%) of 43 counseled women moved > or =1 stage closer to screening, based on a modified Precaution Adoption Process Model.

CONCLUSION: It is feasible to reach and counsel women who are long overdue for a mammogram and to advance their stage of adoption. The intervention should be formally evaluated in a prospective trial comparing it to control or to proven interventions.

METHODS: We used a grounded theory approach to obtain and analyze data from focus groups, telephone interviews, and surveys. Emergent specific themes were compared with emerging decision levels of nonadherence. Each decision level was then compared with the Precaution Adoption Process Model and the Transtheoretical Model.

RESULTS: A total of 6 key themes influencing mammogram nonadherence emerged as did 6 decision levels. Variability within themes was associated with specific decision levels. The decision levels were not adequately classified by either stage model.

CONCLUSIONS: Stage-based educational strategies may benefit by tailoring interventions to these 6 decision levels.

METHODS: This randomized controlled trial used a two-stepped intervention that included a mailed booklet on colorectal cancer screening followed by computer-assisted telephone counseling that was based on the Precaution Adoption Process Model. Chart audit was used to document completion of colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy or fecal occult blood testing.

RESULTS: Record audits were completed on 2,474 (88%) of the 2,817 eligible participants. There was no significant difference in the frequency and nature of the screening tests completed in the study arms. In a sub-analysis, stages of adoption were evaluated pre- and post-telephone counseling. Over half those receiving counseling reported a change in stage towards screening adoption.

CONCLUSION: Overall, the intervention did not increase colorectal screening compared to control. Two possible reasons for the absence of a screening effect include: (a) the focus of the protocol on education for most patients rather than motivation, and (b) the requirement that patients interested in screening seek further information and a referral on their own from their providers. While those receiving telephone counseling improved their stage of adoption, we cannot rule out selection bias. Stronger physician recommendation to speak with the counselors could improve call acceptance. Future colorectal screening should address these weaknesses.

METHODS. The study used a pretest/post-test two-community design, with one community assigned as the intervention community and the other as the comparison. The intervention consisted of a comprehensive physician involvement component and a community education effort. To assess the overall impact of the interventions, we measured women's participation in screening via random digit dial telephone surveys at three time points, each approximately 18 months apart.

RESULTS. Over the course of the study, there were dramatic improvements in breast cancer screening participation in both communities. However, the intervention city showed more improvement in selected variables than did the comparison community in the early phases of the project between baseline and midpoint. These included increased advice by physicians to have mammograms, increased awareness that screening is necessary in the absence of symptoms, increased awareness that many women over 50 have mammograms, decreased perception of barriers to clinical breast exam, and an increase in the proportion of women having a clinical breast exam. In addition, significantly fewer women in the intervention city than in the comparison city reported never having had a mammogram at midpoint.

CONCLUSIONS. The findings demonstrate limited impact of a community intervention during a period of increasing adoption of mammography screening, in part, due to this rapidly rising secular trend. Additionally, increased activities in the comparison community were documented. Therefore, as incidence of screening increases, targeted activities aimed at population subgroups are warranted, and evaluation designs need to include multiple comparison groups or broader geographic random samples.

DESIGN. Pilot study with cohort follow-up.

INTERVENTIONS. Physicians were offered an opportunity to have their counseling and physical examination skills evaluated in a one-on-one interaction with standardized patients. The protocol included patient instructors who were trained to use a uniform breast health history that emphasized their increased risk of breast cancer, scant knowledge of breast-cancer screening, and fear of medical tests and cancer. The standardized patients were trained using a 77-point checklist. They demonstrated a high degree of consistency and reproducibility. A critical part of the learning experience was immediate feedback to the physicians regarding their performances. Physicians who took the course were given an opportunity to repeat it approximately 18 months later.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS. Of the 82 primary care physicians in the community, 49 (60%) were eligible to have their skills evaluated. Of these, 38 (77.6%) participated in the intervention. Baseline skills had mean scores (correct responses) better than 50% in most aspects of the physical examination but less than 35% in several critical counseling areas: reviewing mechanics of getting mammography, actually recommending mammography, and directing the patient regarding scheduling. Of the 38 physicians, 15 repeated the course. There was a significant improvement in their overall performance: 49% vs 67% (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS. Primary care physicians in a non-academic practice are interested in reviewing and improving their counseling skills. They are capable of improving their skills after receiving background information, instruction, and brief feedback. They maintain these improvements over time.