Improving population-based cervical cancer screening in general practice: Effects of a national strategy

International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 193-200

  Hermens, Rosella P M G ^a   Hak, Eelko ^b   Hulscher, Marlies E J L ^b   Mulder, Jan ^b   Tacken, Margot A J B ^b   Braspenning, Jozé C C ^b   Grol, Richard P T M ^b  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; General practice; Guidelines adherence; Organization; Prevention; Screening

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER SYSTEM; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; MASS SCREENING; NETHERLANDS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

DOCUMENTATION; FAMILY PRACTICE; FEMALE; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MASS SCREENING; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; NETHERLANDS; ODDS RATIO; PROGRAM EVALUATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REGISTRIES; REMINDER SYSTEMS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 0033045424     PISSN: 13534505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/11.3.193     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Laara E, Day NE, Hakama N. Trends in mortality from cervical cancer in the Nordic countries: association with organized screening programs. Lancet 1987; 1: 1247-1249.
2. Lynge E, Madsen M, Engholm G. Effect of organized screening on incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in Denmark. Cancer Res 1989; 49: 2157-2160.
3. Day NE. Screening for cancer of the cervix. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1989; 43: 103-106.
4. Sigurdsson K. Effect of organized screening on the risk of cervical cancer. Evaluation of screening activity in Iceland, 1964-1991. Int J Cancer 1993; 54: 563-570.
5. van der Graaf Y, Klinkhamer PJJM, Vooijs GP. Effects of population screening for cancer of the uterine cervix in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Prev Med 1986; 15: 582-590.
6. MacGregor JE, Moss S, Parkin DM, Day NE. Cervical cancer screening in north-east Scotland. In Hakama M, Miller AB, Day NE, eds, Screening for Cancer of the Uterine Cervix (No. 76). Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1986.
7. Hakama M, Chamberlain J, Day NE et al. Evaluation of screening programmes for gynaecological cancer. Br J Cancer 1985; 52: 669-673.
8. Anderson GH, Boyes DA, Benedet JL et al. Organization and results of the cervical cytology screening programme in British Columbia, 1955-1985. Br Med J 1988; 296: 975-978.
9. Austoker J. Cancer prevention in primary care: screening for cervical cancer. Br Med J 1994; 309: 241-248.
10. Elford RW, Jennett P, Bell N et al. Putting prevention into practice. Health Reports 1994; 6: 142-153.
11. Coleman D, Day N, Douglas G et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. Europe against cancer programme. Eur J Cancer 1993; 29AS 4: S1-S38.
12. Dutch College of GPs (DCGP), National Association of GPs (NAGP). Draft-proposal concerning prevention in general practice (in Dutch). Utrecht: DCGP, 1992: 17-20, Supplement 3.
13. Wender RC. Cancer screening and prevention in primary care. Cancer 1993; 72: 1093-1099.
14. Carney PA, Dietrich AJ, Keller A et al. Tools, teamwork and tenacity: an office system for cancer prevention. Fam Pract 1992; 35: 388-394.
15. Weingarten M, Bazel D, Shannon H. Computerized protocol for preventive medicine: a controlled self-audit in family practice. Fam Pract 1989; 6: 120-124.
16. Hak E, Hermens RPMG, van Essen GA et al. Population-based prevention of influenza in Dutch general practice. Br J Gen Pract 1997; 47: 363-366.
17. Palm BTHM, Kant AC, van den Bosch WJHM et al. A call system for cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands organized on the basis of general practice. Eur J Gen Pract 1996; 2: 104-108.
18. Havelock CM. Cervical screening performance in general practice. An evaluation in a single health district. Cytopathology 1990; 1: 59-64.
19. Grol R. Beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice. Br Med J 1997; 315: 418-421.
20. Davis DA, Thomson MA, Oxman AD, Haynes RB. Evidence for the effectiveness of CME. A review of 50 randomized controlled trials. J Am Med Assoc 1992; 268: 1111-1117.
21. Grimshaw JM, Russell IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 1993; 342: 1317-1322.
22. Wensing M, Grol R. Single and combined strategies for implementing changes in primary care: a literature review. Int J Qual Health Care 1994; 6: 115-132.
23. Avorn J, Soumerai SB. Improving drug-therapy decisions through educational outreach. A randomized controlled trial of academically based 'detailing'. N Engl J Med 1983; 308: 1457-1463.
24. Dietrich AJ, O'Connor GT, Keller A et al. Cancer: improving early detection and prevention. A community practice randomized trial. Br Med J 1992; 304: 687-691.
25. Fullard E, Fowler G, Gray M. Promoting prevention in primary care: controlled trial of low technology, low cost approach. Br Med J 1987; 294: 1080-1082.
26. Fullard E, Fowler G, Gray M. Facilitating prevention in primary care. Br Med J 1984; 289: 1585-1587.
27. Allsop J. Changing in Primary Care: The role of facilitators. London: King's Fund Centre for Health Services Development, 1990.
28. Hulscher MEJL, van Drenth BB, van der Wouden JC et al. Changing preventive practice: a controlled trial on the effects of outreach visits to organize prevention of cardiovascular disease. Qual Health Care 1997; 6: 19-24.
29. Nijland A, Groenier K, Meyboom-de Jong B et al. Determinants for delegating (medical-technical) tasks to the practice nurse (in Dutch, with summary in English). Huizarts Wet 1991; 34: 484-487.
30. Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Statistics with Confidence. London: BMJ, 1989.
31. Blalock HM. Social Statistics, 2nd edn. London: Mcgraw-Hill, 1987.
32. Hermens RPMG, Hak E, Hulscher MEJ et al. Do general practices adhere to organizational guidelines for effective cervical cancer screening? Fam Pract 1998; 15: 112-118.
33. Central Bureau voor de Statistiek. Vademecum of Health Statistics. The Hague: CBS, 1995
34. Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM et al. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group. Br Med J 1998; 317: 465-468.
35. Kanouse D, Kallich J, Kahan J. Dissemination of effectiveness and outcomes research. Health Policy 1995; 34: 167-192.