Reasons for variation in coverage in the NHS cervical screening programme

Cytopathology

Volumn 12, Issue 6, 2001, Pages 354-366

  McGahan, C E ^a   Blanks, R G ^a   Moss, S M ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cervix; Population coverage; Screening

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; GROUPS BY AGE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING; UTERINE CERVIX;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; PROGRAM EVALUATION; RURAL HEALTH; URBAN HEALTH; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0035779992     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.2001.00353.x     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. Chamberlain J. Reasons why some screening programmes fail to control cervical cancer. In: Hakama M, ed. Screening for Cancer of the Uterine Cervix. Lyon: IARC, 1986; 305-8.
2. Governmental Statistical Service. Statistical Bulletin, Screening Programme, England. 1999.
3. Orbell S, Crombie A, Robertson A, Johnston G, Konicer M. Assessing the effectiveness of a screening campaign: Who is missed by 80% cervical screening coverage? J R Soc Med 1995; 88: 389-94.
4. Bickler GSG. Inaccuracy of FHSA registers: Help from electoral registers. BJM 1993; 306: 1167.
5. Bahl V. Cancer and ethnic minorities - The Department of Health's perspective. Br J Cancer 1996; 74: Suppl. XXIX, S2-S10.