An evaluation of a social marketing campaign to reduce the number of London women who have never been screened for cervical cancer [3]

Journal of Medical Screening

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 204-205

  Millett, Christopher ^a   Zelenyanszki, Christiane ^b   Furlong, Carole ^c   Binysh, Kathie ^b  

^a Lambeth Primary Care Trust   (United Kingdom)

^b Cervical Screening Quality Assurance Reference Centre   (United Kingdom)

^c Hounslow Primary Care Trust   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; LETTER; SOCIAL MARKETING; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; MASS SCREENING; PATIENT ATTITUDE; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

FEMALE; HUMANS; LONDON; MASS SCREENING; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PROGRAM EVALUATION; SOCIAL MARKETING; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 33644841142     PISSN: 09691413     EISSN: 09691413     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/096914105775220688     Document Type: Letter

References (6)

1. Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, Matthews F. The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet 2004;364:249-256
2. Austoker J. Cancer prevention in primary care: screening for cervical cancer. BMJ 1994;309:241-248
3. Department of Health. Statistical Bulletin Cervical Screening Programme England: 2003-04. UK: Department of Health. Available at: http://www. publications.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0420.htm
4. Sasieni P, Adams J, Cuzick J. Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories. Br J Cancer 2003;89:88-93
5. Miller A. Cervical Cancer Screening Programmes: Managerial Guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 1992
6. Jepson R, Clegg A, Forbes C. The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2000;4:14