Promoting regular mammography screening I. A systematic assessment of validity in a randomized trial

Deborah J. Del Junco, Sally W. Vernon, Sharon P. Coan, Jasmin A. Tiro, Lori A. Bastian, Lara S. Savas, Catherine A. Perz, David R. Lairson, Wen Chan, Cynthia Warrick, Amy McQueen, William Rakowski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Most health promotion trials in cancer screening offer limited evidence of external validity. We assessed internal and external validity in a nationwide, population-based trial of an intervention to promote regular mammography screening. Methods: Beginning in September 2000, study candidates age 52 years and older (n = 23000) were randomly selected from the National Registry of Women Veterans and sent an eligibility survey. Consistent with intention-to-treat principles for effectiveness trials, we randomly assigned eligible respondents and nonrespondents to one of five groups. We mailed baseline surveys to groups 1-3 followed by intervention materials of varying personalization to groups 1 and 2. We delayed mailing baseline surveys to two additional control groups to coincide with the mailing of postintervention follow-up surveys to groups 1-3 at year 1 (group 4) and year 2 (group 5). Mammography rates were determined from self-report and Veterans Health Administration records. To assess internal validity, we compared groups on participation and factors associated with mammography screening at each stage. To assess external validity, we compared groups 3, 4, and 5 on mammography rates at the most recent follow-up to detect any cueing effects of prior surveys and at the respective baselines to uncover any secular trends. We also compared nonparticipants with participants on factors associated with mammography screening at the trial's end. Results: We established study eligibility for 21340 (92.8%) of the study candidates. Groups 1-3 were similar throughout the trial in participation and correlates of mammography screening. No statistically significant survey cueing effects or differences between nonparticipants and participants across groups were observed. Mammography screening rates over the 30 months preceding the respective baselines were lower in group 5 (82.3% by self-report) than in groups 1-4 (85.1%, P =. 024, group 5 vs groups 1-4 combined), suggesting a decline over time similar to that reported for US women in general. Conclusion: This systematic assessment provides evidence of the trial's internal and external validity and illustrates an approach to evaluating validity that is readily adaptable to future trials of behavioral interventions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)333-346
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of the National Cancer Institute
Volume100
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2008

Fingerprint

Mammography
Self Report
Veterans Health
United States Department of Veterans Affairs
Surveys and Questionnaires
Veterans
Health Promotion
Early Detection of Cancer
Registries
Control Groups
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Promoting regular mammography screening I. A systematic assessment of validity in a randomized trial. / Del Junco, Deborah J.; Vernon, Sally W.; Coan, Sharon P.; Tiro, Jasmin A.; Bastian, Lori A.; Savas, Lara S.; Perz, Catherine A.; Lairson, David R.; Chan, Wen; Warrick, Cynthia; McQueen, Amy; Rakowski, William.

In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 100, No. 5, 03.2008, p. 333-346.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Del Junco, DJ, Vernon, SW, Coan, SP, Tiro, JA, Bastian, LA, Savas, LS, Perz, CA, Lairson, DR, Chan, W, Warrick, C, McQueen, A & Rakowski, W 2008, 'Promoting regular mammography screening I. A systematic assessment of validity in a randomized trial', Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 100, no. 5, pp. 333-346. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn027
Del Junco, Deborah J. ; Vernon, Sally W. ; Coan, Sharon P. ; Tiro, Jasmin A. ; Bastian, Lori A. ; Savas, Lara S. ; Perz, Catherine A. ; Lairson, David R. ; Chan, Wen ; Warrick, Cynthia ; McQueen, Amy ; Rakowski, William. / Promoting regular mammography screening I. A systematic assessment of validity in a randomized trial. In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2008 ; Vol. 100, No. 5. pp. 333-346.
@article{a22a4327a9eb48e78e415e0c301666c6,
title = "Promoting regular mammography screening I. A systematic assessment of validity in a randomized trial",
abstract = "Background: Most health promotion trials in cancer screening offer limited evidence of external validity. We assessed internal and external validity in a nationwide, population-based trial of an intervention to promote regular mammography screening. Methods: Beginning in September 2000, study candidates age 52 years and older (n = 23000) were randomly selected from the National Registry of Women Veterans and sent an eligibility survey. Consistent with intention-to-treat principles for effectiveness trials, we randomly assigned eligible respondents and nonrespondents to one of five groups. We mailed baseline surveys to groups 1-3 followed by intervention materials of varying personalization to groups 1 and 2. We delayed mailing baseline surveys to two additional control groups to coincide with the mailing of postintervention follow-up surveys to groups 1-3 at year 1 (group 4) and year 2 (group 5). Mammography rates were determined from self-report and Veterans Health Administration records. To assess internal validity, we compared groups on participation and factors associated with mammography screening at each stage. To assess external validity, we compared groups 3, 4, and 5 on mammography rates at the most recent follow-up to detect any cueing effects of prior surveys and at the respective baselines to uncover any secular trends. We also compared nonparticipants with participants on factors associated with mammography screening at the trial's end. Results: We established study eligibility for 21340 (92.8{\%}) of the study candidates. Groups 1-3 were similar throughout the trial in participation and correlates of mammography screening. No statistically significant survey cueing effects or differences between nonparticipants and participants across groups were observed. Mammography screening rates over the 30 months preceding the respective baselines were lower in group 5 (82.3{\%} by self-report) than in groups 1-4 (85.1{\%}, P =. 024, group 5 vs groups 1-4 combined), suggesting a decline over time similar to that reported for US women in general. Conclusion: This systematic assessment provides evidence of the trial's internal and external validity and illustrates an approach to evaluating validity that is readily adaptable to future trials of behavioral interventions.",
author = "{Del Junco}, {Deborah J.} and Vernon, {Sally W.} and Coan, {Sharon P.} and Tiro, {Jasmin A.} and Bastian, {Lori A.} and Savas, {Lara S.} and Perz, {Catherine A.} and Lairson, {David R.} and Wen Chan and Cynthia Warrick and Amy McQueen and William Rakowski",
year = "2008",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1093/jnci/djn027",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "100",
pages = "333--346",
journal = "Journal of the National Cancer Institute",
issn = "0027-8874",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Promoting regular mammography screening I. A systematic assessment of validity in a randomized trial

AU - Del Junco, Deborah J.

AU - Vernon, Sally W.

AU - Coan, Sharon P.

AU - Tiro, Jasmin A.

AU - Bastian, Lori A.

AU - Savas, Lara S.

AU - Perz, Catherine A.

AU - Lairson, David R.

AU - Chan, Wen

AU - Warrick, Cynthia

AU - McQueen, Amy

AU - Rakowski, William

PY - 2008/3

Y1 - 2008/3

N2 - Background: Most health promotion trials in cancer screening offer limited evidence of external validity. We assessed internal and external validity in a nationwide, population-based trial of an intervention to promote regular mammography screening. Methods: Beginning in September 2000, study candidates age 52 years and older (n = 23000) were randomly selected from the National Registry of Women Veterans and sent an eligibility survey. Consistent with intention-to-treat principles for effectiveness trials, we randomly assigned eligible respondents and nonrespondents to one of five groups. We mailed baseline surveys to groups 1-3 followed by intervention materials of varying personalization to groups 1 and 2. We delayed mailing baseline surveys to two additional control groups to coincide with the mailing of postintervention follow-up surveys to groups 1-3 at year 1 (group 4) and year 2 (group 5). Mammography rates were determined from self-report and Veterans Health Administration records. To assess internal validity, we compared groups on participation and factors associated with mammography screening at each stage. To assess external validity, we compared groups 3, 4, and 5 on mammography rates at the most recent follow-up to detect any cueing effects of prior surveys and at the respective baselines to uncover any secular trends. We also compared nonparticipants with participants on factors associated with mammography screening at the trial's end. Results: We established study eligibility for 21340 (92.8%) of the study candidates. Groups 1-3 were similar throughout the trial in participation and correlates of mammography screening. No statistically significant survey cueing effects or differences between nonparticipants and participants across groups were observed. Mammography screening rates over the 30 months preceding the respective baselines were lower in group 5 (82.3% by self-report) than in groups 1-4 (85.1%, P =. 024, group 5 vs groups 1-4 combined), suggesting a decline over time similar to that reported for US women in general. Conclusion: This systematic assessment provides evidence of the trial's internal and external validity and illustrates an approach to evaluating validity that is readily adaptable to future trials of behavioral interventions.

AB - Background: Most health promotion trials in cancer screening offer limited evidence of external validity. We assessed internal and external validity in a nationwide, population-based trial of an intervention to promote regular mammography screening. Methods: Beginning in September 2000, study candidates age 52 years and older (n = 23000) were randomly selected from the National Registry of Women Veterans and sent an eligibility survey. Consistent with intention-to-treat principles for effectiveness trials, we randomly assigned eligible respondents and nonrespondents to one of five groups. We mailed baseline surveys to groups 1-3 followed by intervention materials of varying personalization to groups 1 and 2. We delayed mailing baseline surveys to two additional control groups to coincide with the mailing of postintervention follow-up surveys to groups 1-3 at year 1 (group 4) and year 2 (group 5). Mammography rates were determined from self-report and Veterans Health Administration records. To assess internal validity, we compared groups on participation and factors associated with mammography screening at each stage. To assess external validity, we compared groups 3, 4, and 5 on mammography rates at the most recent follow-up to detect any cueing effects of prior surveys and at the respective baselines to uncover any secular trends. We also compared nonparticipants with participants on factors associated with mammography screening at the trial's end. Results: We established study eligibility for 21340 (92.8%) of the study candidates. Groups 1-3 were similar throughout the trial in participation and correlates of mammography screening. No statistically significant survey cueing effects or differences between nonparticipants and participants across groups were observed. Mammography screening rates over the 30 months preceding the respective baselines were lower in group 5 (82.3% by self-report) than in groups 1-4 (85.1%, P =. 024, group 5 vs groups 1-4 combined), suggesting a decline over time similar to that reported for US women in general. Conclusion: This systematic assessment provides evidence of the trial's internal and external validity and illustrates an approach to evaluating validity that is readily adaptable to future trials of behavioral interventions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=40949136567&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=40949136567&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jnci/djn027

DO - 10.1093/jnci/djn027

M3 - Article

C2 - 18314473

AN - SCOPUS:40949136567

VL - 100

SP - 333

EP - 346

JO - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

JF - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

SN - 0027-8874

IS - 5

ER -