Table 3.

Effect of randomized Newsletter Insert on Intervention Targeted Behaviors by risk group

	Visited doctor in last 2 years			Survivor or MD has childhood cancer treatment summarya			Discussed with MD about risks associated with childhood cancerb			Appropriate screening behaviorc
	Insert	No Insert	p-valued	Insert	No Insert	p-valued	Insert	No Insert	p-valued	Insert	No Insert	p-valued
At risk Group
Females
Breast Cancer	95.9%	96.2%	0.65	47.1%	43.8%	0.24	47.9%	49.0%	0.64	57.1%	56.5%	0.48
Heart Disease	91.9%	92.6%	0.70	42.4%	39.6%	0.22	19.2%	15.5%	0.08	31.1%	26.4%	0.08
Osteoporosis	93.3%	91.1%	0.35	38.1%	42.2%	0.78	10.1%	4.0%	0.05	12.4%	7.8%	0.18
Males
Heart Disease	86.8%	85.0%	0.17	44.9%	41.4%	0.10	22.0%	22.5%	0.62	25.2%	24.8%	0.46
Osteoporosis	75.9%	83.3%	0.94	41.6%	42.5%	0.60	1.7%	3.7%	0.91	5.9%	5.9%	0.62

^aSurvivors’ reporting of whether they or their MD had a summary of their childhood cancer treatment used a dichotomous outcome of yes versus no or don’t know, based upon the view that the intervention had not produced the preferred outcome if the survivor reported they did not know.

^bRisk discussion depends on at risk group: discussed cancer related issues, discussed heart disease, or discussed osteoporosis

^cappropriate screening behavior depends on at risk group: mammogram within last 2 years, echocardiogram within last two years, bone density within last 2 years.

^dp-value based on one sided Fisher’s exact test that outcome has higher rate in insert group versus no insert group.