Literature DB >> 17131311

Monitoring a national cancer prevention program: successful changes in cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands.

Matejka Rebolj1, Marjolein van Ballegooijen, Louise-Maria Berkers, Dik Habbema.   

Abstract

The success of screening, an important cancer prevention tool, depends on the quality and efficiency of protocols and guidelines for screening and follow-up. However, even centrally organized screening programs such as the Dutch cervical screening program occasionally show problems in performance. To improve this program, the screening scheme, follow-up, administration and financing protocols and guidelines were thoroughly changed in 1996. This study evaluates the consequences for the performance of the national program. Five-year coverage rate, the proportion of screened women sent to follow-up, follow-up compliance and duration, and the yearly number of Pap smears before and after the changes in 1996 were compared. Five-year coverage increased substantially in the added target age groups (30-34, and 54-60 years); in the old target age group (35-53 years) it remained around 80%. The percentage of screened women sent to follow-up decreased from almost 19-3% per screening round, due to a more restrictive use of the Pap 2 classification, and an evidence-based cessation of follow-up of negative smears without endocervical cells. Follow-up compliance has improved, and the average time until a woman is either referred or rejoins the regular screening schedule, has become shorter. The total number of smears, a strong determinant of screening costs, has decreased by 20% primarily due to the changed follow-up recommendations. In conclusion, the 1996 changes in protocols and guidelines, and their implementation have increased coverage and efficiency, and decreased the screening-induced negative side effects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17131311     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.22167

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  20 in total

1.  Cervix smear abnormalities: linking pathology data in female twins, their mothers and sisters.

Authors:  Jacqueline M Vink; Folkert J van Kemenade; Chris J L M Meijer; Mariel K Casparie; Gerrit A Meijer; Dorret I Boomsma
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands: a tale of two countries.

Authors:  Dik Habbema; Inge M C M De Kok; Martin L Brown
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.911

3.  Increase in viral load, viral integration, and gain of telomerase genes during uterine cervical carcinogenesis can be simultaneously assessed by the HPV 16/18 MLPA-assay.

Authors:  Wendy Theelen; Ernst-Jan M Speel; Michael Herfs; Martin Reijans; Guus Simons; Els V Meulemans; Marcella M Baldewijns; Frans C S Ramaekers; Joan Somja; Philippe Delvenne; Anton H N Hopman
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2010-09-02       Impact factor: 4.307

4.  HPV testing on self collected cervicovaginal lavage specimens as screening method for women who do not attend cervical screening: cohort study.

Authors:  Murat Gök; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Folkert J van Kemenade; Johannes Berkhof; Lawrence Rozendaal; Johan W M Spruyt; Feja Voorhorst; Jeroen A M Beliën; Milena Babovic; Peter J F Snijders; Chris J L M Meijer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-03-11

5.  Harms of cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands.

Authors:  Dik Habbema; Sheila Weinmann; Marc Arbyn; Aruna Kamineni; Andrew E Williams; Inge M C M de Kok; Folkert van Kemenade; Terry S Field; Joost van Rosmalen; Martin L Brown
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 7.396

6.  Socio-demographic characteristics of participation in the opportunistic German cervical cancer screening programme: results from the EPIC-Heidelberg cohort.

Authors:  David Seidel; Nikolaus Becker; Sabine Rohrmann; Katharina Nimptsch; Jakob Linseisen
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-10-08       Impact factor: 4.553

7.  Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: cytology versus human papillomavirus DNA testing.

Authors:  J van Rosmalen; I M C M de Kok; M van Ballegooijen
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 6.531

8.  Incidence of cervical cancer after several negative smear results by age 50: prospective observational study.

Authors:  Matejka Rebolj; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Elsebeth Lynge; Caspar Looman; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Rob Boer; Dik Habbema
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-04-24

9.  Risk of cervical cancer after completed post-treatment follow-up of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: population based cohort study.

Authors:  Matejka Rebolj; Theo Helmerhorst; Dik Habbema; Caspar Looman; Rob Boer; Joost van Rosmalen; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-10-31

Review 10.  A comparative analysis of cervical cancer prevention between Nigeria and Nordic countries that have experienced a decline in cervical cancer incidence.

Authors:  Helen I Anyasi; Anna M Foss
Journal:  Int Health       Date:  2021-07-03       Impact factor: 2.473

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.