Literature DB >> 1638251

Recruitment methods for screening programmes: trial of a new method within a regional osteoporosis study.

M J Garton1, D J Torgerson, C Donaldson, I T Russell, D M Reid.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the response rates and operating costs of three recruitment methods within a regional osteoporosis screening programme.
DESIGN: Randomised trial of three types of invitation letter: one offering fixed appointments with option to change time, one offering fixed appointments but requiring telephoned confirmation of intention to attend, and one inviting recipient to telephone to make an appointment.
SETTING: Osteoporosis screening unit, Aberdeen.
SUBJECTS: 1200 women aged 45-49 years living within 32 km of Aberdeen and randomly selected from the community health index. 400 women were randomised to each appointment method. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers attending for screening; default rate among women who confirmed appointments; social class of attenders; cost per appointment slot and per completed scan.
RESULTS: 299 (75%), 277 (69%), and 217 (54%) women were scanned after fixed, confirmable, and open invitations respectively. Women who attended were given a questionnaire, and 694 (87.5%) returned it. No significant differences were found in the social class of attenders among the three methods. Of the 514 women who made or confirmed appointments, 494 attended for a scan. Total costs per scan were 25.00 pounds, 21.40 pounds, and 21.00 pounds for fixed, confirmable, and open invitations respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The offer of a fixed appointment requiring telephoned confirmation has the potential to reduce the costs of scanning without exaggerating any social bias or significantly reducing response rates provided that empty appointments can be rebooked at short notice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1638251      PMCID: PMC1882614          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.305.6845.82

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  11 in total

1.  A randomised trial of general practitioner-written invitations to encourage attendance at screening mammography.

Authors:  L Irwig; D Turnbull; M McMurchie
Journal:  Community Health Stud       Date:  1990

2.  Screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  W D George; E N Gleave; P C England; M C Wilson; R A Sellwood; D Asbury; G Hartley; P G Barker; P Hobbs; J Wakefield
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1976-10-09

3.  Cervical cytology screening: a comparison of two call systems.

Authors:  A Wilson; A Leeming
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1987-07-18

4.  Randomised trial of two strategies offering women mobile screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  E M Williams; M P Vessey
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-07-15

5.  Evaluation of a call programme for cervical cytology screening in women aged 50-60.

Authors:  A J Robertson; G S Reid; C A Stoker; C Bissett; N Waugh; I Fenton; J Rowan; R Halkerston
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-07-15

6.  The Community Health Index--how accurate is it?

Authors:  M A Roworth; I G Jones
Journal:  Community Med       Date:  1988-11

7.  A survey of cervical smear screening in general practice.

Authors:  J T Spenser
Journal:  Practitioner       Date:  1967-02

8.  Response by women aged 65-79 to invitation for screening for breast cancer by mammography: a pilot study.

Authors:  P Hobbs; C Kay; E H Friedman; A S St Leger; C Lambert; C R Boggis; T M Howard; A W Owen; D L Asbury
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1990-12-08

9.  Acceptors and rejectors of an invitation to undergo breast screening compared with those who referred themselves.

Authors:  P Hobbs; A Smith; W D George; R A Sellwood
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1980-03       Impact factor: 3.710

10.  Cervical screening in general practice: call and recall.

Authors:  L L Ridsdale
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1987-06
View more
  13 in total

1.  Motivating people to attend screening for osteoporosis.

Authors:  K Cullen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-08-29

2.  Non-attendance in outpatients.

Authors:  D Torgerson
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Milk consumption and bone mineral density in middle aged and elderly women.

Authors:  S Murphy; K T Khaw; H May; J E Compston
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-04-09

4.  Recruitment methods for screening programmes: trial of an improved method within a regional osteoporosis study.

Authors:  D J Torgerson; M J Garton; C Donaldson; I T Russell; D M Reid
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-07-10

5.  Bone density and milk. Low recruitment rate may introduce selection bias.

Authors:  R E Thomas; D Torgerson; D M Reid
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-06-11

6.  Population screening for low bone mineral density: do non-attenders have a lower risk of osteoporosis?

Authors:  D J Torgerson; C Donaldson; M J Garton; I T Russell; M Westland; D M Reid
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Prediction of fractures in perimenopausal women: a comparison of dual energy x ray absorptiometry and broadband ultrasound attenuation.

Authors:  A Stewart; D J Torgerson; D M Reid
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 19.103

8.  Association of oestrogen receptor alpha gene polymorphisms with postmenopausal bone loss, bone mass, and quantitative ultrasound properties of bone.

Authors:  O M E Albagha; U Pettersson; A Stewart; F E A McGuigan; H M MacDonald; D M Reid; S H Ralston
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 6.318

9.  Vitamin E homologues α- and γ-tocopherol are not associated with bone turnover markers or bone mineral density in peri-menopausal and post-menopausal women.

Authors:  T C Yang; G G Duthie; L S Aucott; H M Macdonald
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Polymorphisms in the P2X7 receptor gene are associated with low lumbar spine bone mineral density and accelerated bone loss in post-menopausal women.

Authors:  Alison Gartland; Kristen K Skarratt; Lynne J Hocking; Claire Parsons; Leanne Stokes; Niklas Rye Jørgensen; William D Fraser; David M Reid; James A Gallagher; James S Wiley
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 4.246

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.