COVID-19 is a rapidly evolving situation. When working in different community settings, follow CDC guidance External Web Site Icon to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. Visit www.cdc.gov/coronavirus External Web Site Icon for the latest public health information.

Cancer Screening: Small Media Targeting Clients – Cervical Cancer

Tabs

What the CPSTF Found

About The Systematic Review

The CPSTF finding is based on evidence from a systematic review of 12 studies (search period 1966 - 2004). The review was conducted on behalf of the CPSTF by a team of specialists in systematic review methods, and in research, practice, and policy related to cancer prevention and control.

Summary of Results

Detailed results from the systematic review are available in the published evidence review pdf icon [PDF - 1.05 MB].

Twelve studies qualified for the systematic review.

  • Proportion of study participants completing screening by Pap test: median increase of 4.5 percentage points (interquartile interval: 0.2 to 9.0 percentage points; 12 study arms).
  • Tailoring was either less effective or, at best, no more effective than untailored interventions (2 studies).

Summary of Economic Evidence

Detailed results from the systematic review are available in the published evidence review pdf icon [PDF - 1.05 MB].

Five studies qualified for the review and reported a wide range of cost effectiveness estimates based on different metrics and assumptions.

Applicability

Findings should apply across a range of populations and settings, provided the intervention is appropriately adapted to the target population and delivery context.

Evidence Gaps

The CPSTF identified several areas that have limited information. Additional research and evaluation could help answer the following questions and fill remaining gaps in the evidence base. (What are evidence gaps?)

  • Does effectiveness of small media differ by choice of medium (e.g., letter, video, brochure, or Internet-delivered application), information source (e.g., personal physician, educator), or intensity or frequency of delivery?
  • What is the relative cost effectiveness of tailored versus untailored messages?
  • How does the effectiveness of interventions to increase community demand for screening vary with the health literacy of a target population or subpopulation?
  • How can newer methods of communication—including automated telephone calls and Internet-delivered applications—be used to improve delivery, acceptance, and effectiveness of these interventions?
  • How effective are these interventions in increasing screening by colorectal endoscopy or by double contrast barium enema (for which no qualifying studies were identified)?
  • What is required to disseminate and implement effective interventions in community settings across the United States?
  • How can or should these approaches be applied to assure that screening, once initiated, is maintained at recommended intervals?
  • With respect to interventions that may be tailored to individuals, how are effective tailoring programs adapted, disseminated, and implemented in community-based settings across the United States?

Study Characteristics

  • Reviewed studies were conducted in both rural and urban communities and among different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups.
  • Studies used personal checklists or record booklets to inform and prompt participants; videos in patient waiting areas with or without posters; mailed leaflets, brochures, letters; or a combination of mailed information in printed and video format.