Self-sampling vs. reminder letter: effects on cervical cancer screening attendance and coverage

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahti Anttila
2010 ◽  
Vol 128 (11) ◽  
pp. 2681-2687 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anni Virtanen ◽  
Ahti Anttila ◽  
Tapio Luostarinen ◽  
Pekka Nieminen

2014 ◽  
Vol 136 (6) ◽  
pp. E677-E684 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anni Virtanen ◽  
Ahti Anttila ◽  
Tapio Luostarinen ◽  
Nea Malila ◽  
Pekka Nieminen

PLoS ONE ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e0161403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Castillo ◽  
Aurora Astudillo ◽  
Omar Clavero ◽  
Julio Velasco ◽  
Raquel Ibáñez ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 870-876 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aline Richard ◽  
Sabine Rohrmann ◽  
Seraina M. Schmid ◽  
Brigitte Frey Tirri ◽  
Dorothy J. Huang ◽  
...  

Medicina ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (9) ◽  
pp. 570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justina Paulauskiene ◽  
Rugile Ivanauskiene ◽  
Erika Skrodeniene ◽  
Janina Petkeviciene

Background and Objectives: In 2004, Lithuania started the Nationwide Cervical Cancer Screening Programme. However, screening is more opportunistic than population-wide and the programme’s coverage is insufficient. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of systematic personal invitation on coverage of cervical cancer (CC) screening in urban and rural regions of Lithuania. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in an urban primary healthcare centre (PHCC) and in a rural PHCC, where prevailing CC screening practice was highly opportunistic. Over the first year, all women aged 25–60 who had not received a Pap smear test within the last three years in urban (n = 1591) and rural (n = 1843) PHCCs received a personal invitation letter to participate in the screening. Over the second year, the reminder letter was sent to the non-attendees (n = 1042 in urban and n = 929 in rural PHCCs). A random sample of women (n = 93), who did not attend for screening after two letters, was contacted by phone in order to identify the barriers of non-attendance. Results: Before the study, only 9.6% of the target population in urban and 14.7% in rural PHCCs participated in CC screening. After the first invitation letter, the participation in CC screening increased up to 24.6% in urban and 30.8% in rural areas (p < 0.001). After the reminder letter, the attendance was 16.4% in urban and 22.2% in rural PHCCs (p < 0.001). The most common barriers for the non-attendance were lack of time, long waiting time for family doctor’s appointment, worries that a Pap test might be unpleasant and preventive gynaecological examination outside of the screening program. Conclusions: A systematic personal invitation with one reminder letter significantly increased the coverage of CC screening and was more effective in rural regions than in urban regions. The assessed barriers for non-attendance can be used to improve the coverage of screening.


1990 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 410-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc A. Koopmanschap ◽  
Gerrit J. van Oortmarssen ◽  
Heleen M. A. van Agt ◽  
Marjolein van Ballegooijen ◽  
J. Dik F. Habbema ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 90-95
Author(s):  
Anna Altová ◽  
Ivana Kulhánová ◽  
Lukáš Brůha ◽  
Michala Lustigová

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. S528
Author(s):  
A. Pakai ◽  
V. Péter ◽  
Z. Kívés ◽  
R. Vajda ◽  
T. Csákvári ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document