Analytic Framework [PDF - 410 KB]
When starting an effectiveness review, the systematic review team develops an analytic framework. The analytic framework illustrates how the intervention approach is thought to affect public health. It guides the search for evidence and may be used to summarize the evidence collected. The analytic framework often includes intermediate outcomes, potential effect modifiers, potential harms, and potential additional benefits.
No content is available for this section.
The number of studies and publications do not always correspond (e.g., a publication may include several studies or one study may be explained in several publications).
Bankhead C, Richards SH, Peters TJ, et al. Improving attendance for breast screening among recent non-attenders: a randomised controlled trial of two interventions in primary care. J Med Screen 2001;8(2):99-105.
Bastani R, Marcus A, Maxwell A, et al. Evaluation of an intervention to increase mammography screening in Los Angeles. Prev Med 1994;23:83-90.
Bastani R, Maxwell AE, Bradford C, et al. Tailored risk notification for women with a family history of breast cancer. Prev Med 1999;29(5):355-64.
Champion V, Maraj M, Hui S, et al. Comparison of tailored interventions to increase mammography screening in nonadherent older women. Prev Med 2003;36(2):150-8.
Champion VL, Skinner CS, Menon U, et al. Comparisons of tailored mammography interventions at two months postintervention. Ann Behav Med 2002;24(3):211-8.
Davis T, Berkel H, Arnold C, et al. Intervention to increase mammography utilization in a public hospital. J Gen Intern Med 1998;13(4):230-3.
Dickey L, Petitti D. A patient-held minirecord to promote adult preventive care. J Fam Pract 1992;34(4):457-63.
Dietrich AJ, Duhamel M. Improving geriatric preventive care through a patient-held checklist.Fam Med 1989;21(3):195-8.
Falvo DR, Tippy PK. Comparison of interventions to increase asymptomatic women's use of mammography screening. Health Values 1993;17(1):12-7.
Fox SA, Stein JA, Sockloskie RJ, Ory MG. Targeted mailed materials and the Medicare beneficiary: increasing mammogram screening among the elderly. Am J Public Health 2001;91(1):55-61.
Herman C, Speroff T, Cebul R. Improving compliance with breast cancer screening in older women: results of a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 1995;155:717-22.
Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ, Kingery P, et al. Tailored messages for breast and cervical cancer screening of low-income and minority women using medical records data. Patient Educ Couns 2003;50(2):123-32.
Lipkus I, Rimer B, Halabi S, Strigo T. Can tailored interventions increase mammography use among HMO women? Am J Gastroenterol 2000;18(1):1-10.
McCaul KD, Wold KS. The effects of mailed reminders and tailored messages on mammography screening. J Community Health 2002;27(3):181-90.
Mead V, Rhyne R, Wiese W, et al. Impact of environmental patient education on preventive medicine practices. J Fam Pract 1995;40(4):363-9.
Rakowski W, Ehrich B, Goldstein M, et al. Increasing mammography among women aged 40-74 by use of a stage-matched, tailored intervention. Prev Med 1998;27:748-56.
Richards SH, Bankhead C, Peters TJ, et al. Cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two primary care interventions aimed at improving attendance for breast screening. J Med Screen 2001;8(2):91-8.
Rimer BK, Halabi S, Sugg SC, et al. Effects of a mammography decision-making intervention at 12 and 24 months. Am J Prev Med 2002;22(4):247-57.
Rothman A. Attributions of responsibility and persuasion: Increasing mammography utilization among women over 40 with an internally oriented message. Health Psychol 1993;12:29-47.
Seow A, Straughan P, Ng E, et al. Factors determining acceptability of mammography in an Asian population: a study among women in Singapore. Cancer Causes Control 1997;8:771-9.
Skinner C, Strecher V, Hospers H. Physicians' recommendations for mammography: do tailored messages make a difference? Am J Public Health 1994;84(1):43-9.
Armstrong GN, Lairson DR. Cost-effectiveness of alternate contact protocols and costs of mammography promotion interventions for women veterans. Evaluation and Program Planning 2006;29:120–9.
Brown J, Welton NJ, Bankhead C, Richards SH, Roberts L, Tydeman, Peters TJ. A Bayesian approach to analysing the cost-effectiveness of two primary care interventions aimed at improving attendance for breast screening. Health Economics 2006;15:435-45.
Lairson DR, Newmark GR, Rakowski W, Tiro JA, Vernon SW. Development costs of a computer-generated tailored intervention. Evaluation and Program Planning 2004;27:161–9.
Lynch FL, Whitlock EP, Valanis BG, Smith SK. Cost-effectiveness of a tailored intervention to increase screening in HMO women overdue for Pap test and mammography services. Preventive Medicine 2004;38:403–11.
Saywell RM, Champion VL, Skinner CS, Menon U, Daggy J. A cost-effectiveness comparison of three tailored interventions to increase mammography screening. Journal of Women’s Health 2004;13(8):909-18.
The following outlines the search strategy used for these reviews of interventions to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening: Client Reminders (archived); Client Incentives (archived); Mass Media Targeting Clients (archived); Small Media Targeting Clients; Group Education for Clients (archived); One-on-One Education for Clients (archived); Reducing Structural Barriers for Clients (archived); Reducing Client Out-of-Pocket Costs (archived); Provider Assessment and Feedback (archived); Provider Incentives (archived).
To establish the evidence base the team searched five computerized databases from the earliest entries in each through November 2004: MEDLINE, database of the National Library of Medicine (from 1966); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health database (CINAHL, from 1982); the Chronic Disease Prevention database (CDP, Cancer Prevention and Control subfield, from 1988); PsycINFO (from 1967); and the Cochrane Library databases. Medical subject headings (MeSH) searched (including all subheadings) are shown below. The team also scanned bibliographies from key articles and solicited other citations from other team members and subject-matter experts. Conference abstracts were not included because, according to Community Guide criteria, they generally do not provide enough information to assess study validity and to address the research questions.
The search identified over 9000 citations whose titles and abstracts were screened for potential relevance to interventions and outcomes of interest; of these, 580 articles were retrieved for full-text review.
Search terms used in five electronic databases to find studies for inclusion in the systematic reviews of cancer screening. Searches were conducted to find all studies of cancer screening including those specific to screening for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer.
Neoplasms—combined with any of the following headings:
- Early detection
- Mass screening
- Multiphasic screening
- Preventive health services
- Breast neoplasms
- Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
- (Uterine) cervical neoplasms
- Cervix dysplasia
- Vaginal smears
- Colonic neoplasms
- Colorectal neoplasms
- Occult blood
- Sigmoid neoplasms
No content is available for this section.