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: Mass Media Targeting Clients – Breast Cancer

Tabs

What the CPSTF Found

About The Systematic Review

The CPSTF finding is based on evidence from a Community Guide systematic review published in 2008 (Baron et al., 0 studies, search period 1966-2004) combined with more recent evidence (2 studies, search period 2004-2008). The systematic 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. This finding updates and replaces the 2008 CPSTF finding on Cancer Screening: Mass Media Targeting Clients – Breast Cancer pdf icon [PDF - 223 KB].

Summary of Results

Two studies qualified for the systematic review. Findings were inconsistent.

  • In Australia, radio and newspaper advertisements targeted Italian-speaking women.
    • Among women in their fifties, completed mammograms decreased by 16.1% for initial screens and 4.2% for following screens.
    • Among women in their sixties, completed mammograms decreased by 10.8% for initial screens and increased by 9.0% for subsequent screens.
  • A multicomponent intervention aimed at African-American women included a higher or lower intensity mass media component. When compared with the lower intensity component, the higher intensity program showed:
    • A decrease of 2.4 percentage points for mammography
    • An increase of 4.2 percentage points for clinical breast exams
    • Neither change was statistically significant

Summary of Economic Evidence

An economic review of this intervention was not conducted because CPSTF did not have enough information to determine if the intervention works.

Applicability

Applicability of this intervention across different settings and populations was not assessed because CPSTF did not have enough information to determine if the intervention works.

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?)

The following outlines evidence gaps for client incentives to increase breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening.

  • What is the efficacy of Internet-delivered mass media campaigns and other mass approaches? Can the Internet be marshaled to create the impact of mass media at lower cost and with even greater reach?
  • What are the incremental effects of adding intervention components to other interventions?
  • What influence do newer methods of communication (e.g., the Internet, e-mail, social media, automated interactive voice response, texting) have on intervention effectiveness?
  • What is the influence of health system factors on intervention effectiveness?
  • Are interventions effective for promoting colorectal cancer screening with methods other than FOBT?
  • Are interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening equally effective when addressing colorectal cancer screening more generally, as when specific to one type of test?

Study Characteristics

  • One study evaluated the effect of a radio and newspaper advertisement campaign compared with usual care among urban, Italian-speaking women in Australia.
  • The other study compared a multicomponent intervention including a higher-intensity mass media component (messages on city buses, newspaper ads and/or articles, radio and/or TV programs, and public service announcements) with a multicomponent intervention including a lower-intensity mass media component (campus newspapers and yard signs).