A primary healthcare-based intervention to improve a Danish cervical cancer screening programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Volumn 63, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 510-515

  Jensen, H ^a   Svanholm, H ^b   Stovring H ^c   Bro, F ^d  

^a Praksisenheden Aarhus Region Midtjylland ^*  (Denmark)

^b RANDERS REGIONAL HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^c Research Unit for General Practice in Odense   (Denmark)

^d Research Unit for General Practice in Aarhus   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH SERVICES; OPTIMIZATION; REPRODUCTIVE DISORDER;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

ADULT; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; DENMARK; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; REMINDER SYSTEMS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS; YOUNG ADULT;

AARHUS [DENMARK]; DENMARK; EURASIA; EUROPE; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA;

EID: 67650069842     PISSN: 0143005X     EISSN: 14702738     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2008.077636     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Sigurdsson K, Sigvaldason H. Longitudinal trends in cervical cytological lesions and the effect of risk factors. A 30-year overview. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006;85:350-8.
2. Sundhedsstyrelsen - Center for Evaluering og MTV. Væskebaseret teknik og udstrygningsteknik anvendt til screening for livmoderhalskræft i Danmark: en medicinsk teknologivurdering. Report No. 7(3). København: Sundhedsstyrelsen - Center for Evaluering og Medicinsk Teknologivurdering, 2005.
3. Taylor RJ, Morrell SL, Mamoon HA, et al. Effects of screening on cervical cancer incidence and mortality in New South Wales implied by influences of period of diagnosis and birth cohort. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:782-8.
4. van Ballegooijen M, van den Akker-van Marle E, Patnick J, et al. Overview of important cervical cancer screening process values in European Union (EU) countries, and tentative predictions of the corresponding effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:2177- 88.
5. WHO. Efficacy of screening. IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention. Lyon: IARC Press, 2005: Chapter 4.
6. Herbert A, Stein K, Bryant TN, et al. Relation between the incidence of invasive cervical cancer and the screening interval: is a five year interval too long? J Med Screen 1996;3:140-5.
7. Bigaard J, Hariri J, Lynge E. Cervical cancer screening in Denmark. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:2198-204.
8. Ingemann-Hansen O, Lidang M, Niemann I, et al. Screening history of women with cervical cancer: a six-year study in Aarhus, Denmark. Br J Cancer 2008;98:1292-4.
9. Bergmann JB, Sigurdsson JA, Sigurdsson K. What attendance rate can be achieved for Pap smear screening? A case-control study of the characteristics of non-attenders and results of reminder efforts. Scand J Prim Health Care 1996;14:152-8.
10. Eaker S, Adami HO, Granath F, et al. A large population-based randomized controlled trial to increase attendance at screening for cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13:346-54.
11. Corkrey R, Parkinson L, Bates L. Pressing the key pad: trial of a novel approach to health promotion advice. Prev Med 2005;41:657- 66.
12. Adab P, Marshall T, Rouse A, et al. Randomised controlled trial of the effect of evidence based information on women's willingness to participate in cervical cancer screening. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:589-93.
13. Allen JD, Stoddard AM, Mays J, et al. Promoting breast and cervical cancer screening at the workplace: results from the Woman to Woman Study. Am J Public Health 2001;91:584-90.
14. Buehler SK, Parsons WL. Effectiveness of a call/recall system in improving compliance with cervical cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ 1997;157:521-6.
15. Burack RC, Gimotty PA, George J, et al. How reminders given to patients and physicians affected pap smear use in a health maintenance organization: results of a randomized controlled trial. Cancer 1998;82:2391-400.
16. Hermens RP, Hak E, Hulscher ME, et al. Do general practices adhere to organizational guidelines for effective cervical cancer screening? Fam Pract 1998;15:112-8.
17. Hermens RP, Hak E, Hulscher ME, et al. Improving population-based cervical cancer screening in general practice: effects of a national strategy. Int J Qual Health Care 1999;11:193-200.
18. Hermens RP, Tacken MA, Hulscher ME, et al. Attendance to cervical cancer screening in family practices in The Netherlands. Prev Med 2000;30:35-42.
19. Byles JE, Sanson-Fisher RW. Mass mailing campaigns to promote screening for cervical cancer: do they work, and do they continue to work? Aust N Z J Public Health 1996;20:254-60.
20. Hou SI. Stage of adoption and impact of direct-mail communications with and without phone intervention on Chinese women's cervical smear screening behavior. Prev Med 2005;41:749-56.
21. Hyndman JC, Straton JA, Pritchard DA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of interventions to promote cervical screening in general practice. Aust N Z J Public Health 1996;20:272-7.
22. Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ, Kingery P, et al. Tailored messages for breast and cervical cancer screening of low-income and minority women using medical records data. Patient Educ Couns 2003;50:123- 32.
23. Margolis KL, Lurie N, McGovern PG, et al. Increasing breast and cervical cancer screening in low-income women. J Gen Intern Med 1998;13:515-21.
24. Morrell S, Taylor R, Zeckendorf S, et al. How much does a reminder letter increase cervical screening among under-screened women in NSW? Aust N Z J Public Health 2005;29:78-84.
25. Sabates R, Feinstein L. The role of education in the uptake of preventative health care: the case of cervical screening in Britain. Soc Sci Med 2006;62:2998-3010.
26. Stein K, Lewendon G, Jenkins R, et al. Improving uptake of cervical cancer screening in women with prolonged history of non-attendance for screening: a randomized trial of enhanced invitation methods. J Med Screen 2005;12:185-9.
27. Stevens SA, Cockburn J, Hirst S, et al. An evaluation of educational outreach to general practitioners as part of a statewide cervical screening program. Am J Public Health 1997;87:1177-81.
28. Torres-Mejia G, Salmeron-Castro J, Tellez-Rojo MM, et al. Call and recall for cervical cancer screening in a developing country: a randomised field trial. Int J Cancer 2000 15;87:869-73.
29. Vivilaki V, Romanidou A, Theodorakis P, et al. Are health education meetings effective in recruiting women in cervical screening programmes? An innovative and inexpensive intervention from the island of Crete. Rural Remote Health 2005;5:376.
30. Forbes C, Jepson R, Martin-Hirsch P. Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening (review). The Cochrane Library 2007;(3).
31. Hermens RP, Hak E, Hulscher ME, et al. Adherence to guidelines on cervical cancer screening in general practice: programme elements of successful implementation. Br J Gen Pract 2001;51:897-903.
32. Nieminen P, Kotaniemi JA, Sigurdsson K. What attendance rate can be achieved for Pap smear screening? A case-control study of the characteristics of non-attenders and results of reminder efforts. Scand J Prim Health Care 1996;14:152-8.
33. Campbell MJ, Elbourne D, Altman DG. CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 2004;328:702-8.
34. Ridout MS, Demétrio CGB, Firth D. Estimating intraclass correlation for binary data. Biometrics 1999;55:137-48.
35. Huber PJ. The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under non-standard conditions. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967:221-3.
36. White H. Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica 1982;50:1-25.
37. Hallfors D, Cho H, Sanchez V, et al. Efficacy vs effectiveness trial results of an indicated "model" substance abuse program: implications for public health. Am J Public Health 2006;96:2254-9.