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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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