Evaluation of a mobile mammography unit: concepts and randomized cluster trial protocol of a population health intervention research to reduce breast cancer screening inequalities

Elodie Guillaume, Quentin Rollet, Ludivine Launay, Séverine Beuriot, Olivier Dejardin, Annick Notari, Elodie Crevel, Ahmed Benhammouda, Laurent Verzaux, Marie-Christine Quertier, Guy Launoy, Elodie Guillaume, Quentin Rollet, Ludivine Launay, Séverine Beuriot, Olivier Dejardin, Annick Notari, Elodie Crevel, Ahmed Benhammouda, Laurent Verzaux, Marie-Christine Quertier, Guy Launoy

Abstract

Background: Breast cancer is the leading cancer in women in France both in incidence and mortality. Organized breast cancer screening (OBCS) has been implemented nationwide since 2004, but the participation rate remains low (48%) and inequalities in participation have been reported. Facilities such as mobile mammography units could be effective to increase participation in OBCS and reduce inequalities, especially areas underserved in screening. Our main objective is to evaluate the impact of a mobile unit and to establish how it could be used to tackle territorial inequalities in OBCS participation.

Methods: A collaborative project will be conducted as a randomized controlled cluster trial in 2022-2024 in remote areas of four French departments. Small geographic areas were constructed by clustering women eligible to OBCS, according to distance to the nearest radiology centre, until an expected sample of eligible women was attained, as determined by logistic and financial constraints. Intervention areas were then selected by randomization in parallel groups. The main intervention is to propose an appointment at the mobile unit in addition to current OBCS in these remote areas according to the principle of proportionate universalism. A few weeks before the intervention, OBCS will be promoted with a specific information campaign and corresponding tools, applying the principle of multilevel, intersectoral and community empowerment to tackle inequalities.

Discussion: This randomized controlled trial will provide a high level of evidence in assessing the effects of mobile unit on participation and inequalities. Contextual factors impacting the intervention will be a key focus in this evaluation. Quantitative analyses will be complemented by qualitative analyses to investigate the causal mechanisms affecting the effectiveness of the intervention and to establish how the findings can be applied at national level.

Trial registration: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, December 21, 2021: NCT05164874 .

Keywords: Breast cancer screening; Mobile mammography; Population health intervention research; Randomized cluster trial; Social and territorial inequalities.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Trial geographic map

References

    1. Poiseuil M, Coureau G, Payet C, Savès M, Debled M, Mathoulin-Pelissier S, et al. Deprivation and mass screening: survival of women diagnosed with breast cancer in France from 2008 to 2010. Cancer Epidemiol. 2019;60:149–155. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2019.03.016.
    1. Deandrea S, Molina-Barceló A, Uluturk A, Moreno J, Neamtiu L, Peiró-Pérez R, et al. Presence, characteristics and equity of access to breast cancer screening programmes in 27 European countries in 2010 and 2014. Results from an international survey. Prev Med. 2016;91:250–263. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.08.021.
    1. Sancho-Garnier H, Colonna M. Breast cancer epidemiology. Presse Med. 2019;48(10):1076–1084. doi: 10.1016/j.lpm.2019.09.022.
    1. Holland R. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis: fourth edition, supplements. 2013.
    1. Edgar L, Glackin M, Hughes C, Rogers KM. Factors influencing participation in breast cancer screening. Br J Nurs. 2013;22(17):1021–1026. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2013.22.17.1021.
    1. Zha N, Alabousi M, Patel BK, Patlas MN. Beyond universal health care: barriers to breast cancer screening participation in Canada. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16(4 Pt B):570–579. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2019.02.044.
    1. Jensen LF, Pedersen AF, Andersen B, Fenger-Grøn M, Vedsted P. Distance to screening site and non-participation in screening for breast cancer: a population-based study. J Public Health (Oxf) 2014;36(2):292–299. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdt068.
    1. Pornet C, Delpierre C, Dejardin O, Grosclaude P, Launay L, Guittet L, et al. Construction of an adaptable European transnational ecological deprivation index: the French version. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(11):982–9.
    1. Ouédraogo S, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, Roussot A, Dialla PO, Pornet C, Poillot ML, et al. Breast cancer screening in thirteen French departments. Bull Cancer. 2015;102(2):126–138. doi: 10.1016/j.bulcan.2014.07.002.
    1. Guillaume E, Launay L, Dejardin O, Bouvier V, Guittet L, Déan P, et al. Could mobile mammography reduce social and geographic inequalities in breast cancer screening participation? Prev Med. 2017;100:84–88. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.04.006.
    1. Deborde T, Chatignoux E, Quintin C, Beltzer N, Hamers FF, Rogel A. Breast cancer screening programme participation and socioeconomic deprivation in France. Prev Med. 2018;115:53–60. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.08.006.
    1. Rollet Q, Guillaume É, Launay L, Launoy G. Socio-territorial inequities in the French National breast cancer screening programme-a cross-sectional multilevel study. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(17):4374.
    1. Moreira CB, Fernandes AFC, Castro RCMB, Oliveira RDP, Pinheiro AKB. Social determinants of health related to adhesion to mammography screening. Rev Bras Enferm. 2018;71(1):97–103. doi: 10.1590/0034-7167-2016-0623.
    1. Scheel JR, Tillack AA, Mercer L, Coronado GD, Beresford SAA, Molina Y, et al. Mobile versus fixed facility: Latinas’ attitudes and preferences for obtaining a mammogram. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(1 Pt A):19–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.08.030.
    1. Greenwald ZR, Fregnani JH, Longatto-Filho A, Watanabe A, Mattos JSC, Vazquez FL, et al. The performance of mobile screening units in a breast cancer screening program in Brazil. Cancer Causes Control. 2018;29(2):233–241. doi: 10.1007/s10552-017-0995-7.
    1. Altobelli E, Lattanzi A. Breast cancer in European Union: an update of screening programmes as of March 2014 (review) Int J Oncol. 2014;45(5):1785–1792. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2014.2632.
    1. Törnberg S, Kemetli L, Svane G, Rosén M, Stenbeck M, Nyström L. Pattern of participation in a cohort aged 50-60 years at first invitation to the service-screening programme with mammography in Stockholm county, Sweden. Prev Med. 2005;41(3-4):728–733. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2005.07.004.
    1. Gultekin M, Ozturk C, Karaca S, Boztaş G, Turan SH, Dundar S, et al. Centralization of mammography reporting with mobile trucks: Turkish experience. Prev Med Rep. 2018;10:317–322. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.04.008.
    1. Fassin D, Grandjean H, Kaminski M, Lang T, Leclerc A. Les inégalités sociales de santé. Paris: La Découverte; 2000. p. 448.
    1. Marmot M, Bell R. Fair society, healthy lives. Public Health. 2012;126(Suppl 1):S4–10. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2012.05.014.
    1. Marmot M, Allen J, Bell R, Bloomer E, Goldblatt P, CftERoSDoHatH D. WHO European review of social determinants of health and the health divide. Lancet. 2012;380(9846):1011–1029. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61228-8.
    1. Guillaume E, Pornet C, Dejardin O, Launay L, Lillini R, Vercelli M, et al. Development of a cross-cultural deprivation index in five European countries. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70(5):493–499. doi: 10.1136/jech-2015-205729.
    1. Hawe P, Potvin L. What is population health intervention research? Can J Public Health. 2009;100(1):Suppl I8–Suppl 14. doi: 10.1007/BF03405503.
    1. Bonell C, Fletcher A, Morton M, Lorenc T, Moore L. Realist randomised controlled trials: a new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(12):2299–2306. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.08.032.
    1. De Silva MJ, Breuer E, Lee L, Asher L, Chowdhary N, Lund C, et al. Theory of Change: a theory-driven approach to enhance the Medical Research Council’s framework for complex interventions. Trials. 2014;15:267. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-267.
    1. Breuer E, Lee L, De Silva M, Lund C. Using theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2016;11:63. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0422-6.
    1. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:42. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.
    1. De Mil R, Guillaume E, Guittet L, Dejardin O, Bouvier V, Pornet C, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a navigation program for colorectal cancer screening to reduce social health inequalities: a French cluster randomized controlled trial. Value Health. 2017;21(6):685–91.
    1. Whitehead M. A typology of actions to tackle social inequalities in health. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(6):473–478. doi: 10.1136/jech.2005.037242.
    1. Irwin A, Valentine N, Brown C, Loewenson R, Solar O, Brown H, et al. The commission on social determinants of health: tackling the social roots of health inequities. PLoS Med. 2006;3(6):e106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030106.
    1. Highfield L, Rajan SS, Valerio MA, Walton G, Fernandez ME, Bartholomew LK. A non-randomized controlled stepped wedge trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-level mammography intervention in improving appointment adherence in underserved women. Implement Sci. 2015;10:143. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0334-x.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner