Skip directly to search Skip directly to site content

S M L XL

Submit your email address to get updates on The Community Guide topics of interest.

?

Increasing Cancer Screening: Provider Reminder and Recall Systems – Task Force Finding

Task Force Finding*

The goal of provider reminder and recall interventions is to increase delivery of appropriate cancer screening services by healthcare providers. The systematic review development team postulated that by increasing provider awareness of their clients’ cancer screening status—either through a reminder that the client is due for screening or by a recall that indicates the client is overdue for screening—the intervention would increase chances that the provider would discuss screening with clients, recommend screening, and order screening tests. These would influence client behavior and lead to increased test completion, which in turn would lead to early detection and, ultimately, to reduced cancer morbidity and mortality.

The Task Force recommends provider reminder and recall systems on the basis of strong evidence of effectiveness in increasing screening by mammography for breast cancer, by Pap test for cervical cancer, and by fecal occult blood test (FOBT) for colorectal cancer. The Task Force also recommends provider reminders on the basis of sufficient evidence of effectiveness in increasing colorectal cancer screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy. Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of provider reminders in increasing colorectal cancer screening by colonoscopy because no studies were found that evaluated this screening modality.

*From the following publication:

Baron RC, Melillo S, Rimer BK, Coates RJ, Kerner J, Habarta N, Chattopadhyay S, Sabatino SA, Elder R, Leeks KJ, Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Intervention to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers: a systematic review of provider reminders. Adobe PDF File [PDF - 452KB] Am J Prev Med 2010;38(1):110-7.

Review completed: February 2006