Women’s views on reminder letters for screening mammography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To explore women’s perspectives on the acceptability and content of reminder letters for screening mammography from their family physicians, as well as such letters’ effect on screening intentions. DESIGN Cross-sectional mailed survey followed by focus groups with a subgroup of respondents. SETTING Ontario. PARTICIPANTS One family physician was randomly selected from each of 23 family health networks and primary care networks participating in a demonstration project to increase the delivery of preventive services. From the practice roster of each physician, up to 35 randomly selected women aged 50 to 69 years who were due or overdue for screening mammograms and who had received reminder letters from their family physicians within the past 6 months were surveyed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Recall of having received reminder letters and of their content, influence of the letters on decisions to have mammograms, and interest in receiving future reminder letters. Focus group interviews with survey respondents explored the survey findings in greater depth using a standardized interview guide. RESULTS The response rate to the survey was 55.7% (384 of 689), and 45.1% (173 of 384) of responding women reported having mammograms in the past 6 months. Among women who recalled receiving letters and either making appointments for or having mammograms, 74.8% (122 of 163) indicated that the letters substantially influenced their decisions. Most respondents (77.1% [296 of 384]) indicated that they would like to continue to receive reminders, and 28.9% (111 of 384) indicated that they would like to receive additional information about mammograms. Participants in 2 focus groups (n = 3 and n = 5) indicated that they thought letters reflected a positive attitude of physicians toward mammography screening. They also commented that newly eligible women had different information needs than women who had had mammograms done in the past. CONCLUSION Reminder letters were considered by participants to be useful and appeared to influence women’s decisions to undergo mammography screening.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".