Literature DB >> 20093138

The impact of interventions to improve attendance in female cancer screening among lower socioeconomic groups: a review.

Teresa Spadea1, Silvia Bellini, Anton Kunst, Irina Stirbu, Giuseppe Costa.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To review the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to promote attendance to breast and cervical cancer screening among lower socioeconomic groups.
METHODS: We performed a computerized literature search looking for relevant papers published between 1997 and 2006. Papers were classified into three groups based on the type of intervention evaluated: (1) implementation of organized population screening programs; (2) different strategies of enhancing attendance within an organized program; (3) local interventions in disadvantaged populations.
RESULTS: The available evidence supports the hypothesis that while organized population screening programs are successful in increasing overall participation rates, they may not per se substantially reduce social inequalities. Some strategies were consistently found to enhance access to screening among lower socioeconomic groups, including cost-reducing interventions (e.g. offering free tests and eliminating geographical barriers), a greater involvement of primary-care physicians and individually tailored pro-active communication that addresses barriers to screening.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from studies suggests that the attendance of deprived women to cancer screening can be improved with organized screening programs tailored to their needs. The same may apply to the prevention of adverse outcomes of other health conditions, such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20093138     DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.01.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Med        ISSN: 0091-7435            Impact factor:   4.018


  52 in total

1.  Variations in preventive care utilisation in Europe.

Authors:  Florence Jusot; Zeynep Or; Nicolas Sirven
Journal:  Eur J Ageing       Date:  2011-10-21

2.  Using Best-Worst Scaling to Understand Patient Priorities: A Case Example of Papanicolaou Tests for Homeless Women.

Authors:  Eve Wittenberg; Monica Bharel; John F P Bridges; Zachary Ward; Linda Weinreb
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 5.166

3.  Evaluating the stage of change model to a cervical cancer screening intervention among Ohio Appalachian women.

Authors:  Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Jill M Oliveri; Gregory S Young; Mira L Katz; Cathy M Tatum; Electra D Paskett
Journal:  Women Health       Date:  2015-10-19

4.  Eighteen-year follow-up of the Göteborg Randomized Population-based Prostate Cancer Screening Trial: effect of sociodemographic variables on participation, prostate cancer incidence and mortality.

Authors:  Jonas Hugosson; Rebecka Arnsrud Godtman; Sigrid V Carlsson; Gunnar Aus; Anna Grenabo Bergdahl; Pär Lodding; Carl-Gustaf Pihl; Johan Stranne; Erik Holmberg; Hans Lilja
Journal:  Scand J Urol       Date:  2017-12-18       Impact factor: 1.612

Review 5.  Do community health worker interventions improve rates of screening mammography in the United States? A systematic review.

Authors:  Kristen J Wells; John S Luque; Branko Miladinovic; Natalia Vargas; Yasmin Asvat; Richard G Roetzheim; Ambuj Kumar
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Get screened: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to increase mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a large, safety net practice.

Authors:  Kevin Fiscella; Amanat Yosha; Samantha K Hendren; Sharon Humiston; Paul Winters; Pat Ford; Starlene Loader; Raymond Specht; Shirley Pope; Amna Adris; Steven Marcus
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  Eliminating disparities in cancer screening and follow-up of abnormal results: what will it take?

Authors:  Kevin Fiscella; Sharon Humiston; Samantha Hendren; Paul Winters; Pascal Jean-Pierre; Amna Idris; Patricia Ford
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2011-02

Review 8.  Interventions to reach underscreened populations: a narrative review for planning cancer screening initiatives.

Authors:  Mavis Jones; Brenda Ross; Alyssa Cloth; Laura Heller
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 3.380

9.  Age differences in mammography screening reconsidered: life course trajectories in 13 European countries.

Authors:  Sarah Missinne; Piet Bracke
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2014-07-04       Impact factor: 3.367

10.  Randomized, controlled trial of a multimodal intervention to improve cancer screening rates in a safety-net primary care practice.

Authors:  Samantha Hendren; Paul Winters; Sharon Humiston; Amna Idris; Shirley X L Li; Patricia Ford; Raymond Specht; Stephen Marcus; Michael Mendoza; Kevin Fiscella
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.