Literature DB >> 2504314

Attendance and non-attendance for breast screening at the south east London breast screening service.

J McEwen1, E King, G Bickler.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the reasons for a low rate of response for breast screening.
DESIGN: All relevant aspects of the organisational process examined, including general practitioners' notes. Non-responders visited and interviewed.
SETTING: An inner city breast screening service working on the model advocated by the Forrest report.
SUBJECTS: 288 Women aged 50-64 registered with several general practices and invited for screening by post. MAIN OUTCOME: Determination of factors important for success of breast screening programmes.
RESULTS: After five women were excluded by their general practitioners the response rate was 129 out of 283 (46%), but 99 (35%) of the women did not receive their invitations because of inaccuracies in the family practitioner committee's database and general practitioners failing to check women's addresses completely.
CONCLUSIONS: Increased rates of response will depend on enabling general practitioners to check addresses and on an increased awareness of the importance of information.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2504314      PMCID: PMC1837095          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.299.6691.104

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


  7 in total

1.  Health education in a computer-managed cervical screening programme.

Authors:  A Eardley; A Elkind; B Spencer; D Haran; P Hobbs; H McGuinness
Journal:  Health Educ J       Date:  1988

2.  Attenders and non-attenders at a breast screening clinic: a comparative study.

Authors:  S M Hunt; F Alexander; M M Roberts
Journal:  Public Health       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 2.427

3.  Screening: the inadequacy of population registers.

Authors:  A Bowling; B Jacobson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-03-04

4.  Computer-managed cervical cytology screening: a pilot study of non-attenders.

Authors:  A K Elkind; D Haran; A Eardley; B Spencer
Journal:  Public Health       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 2.427

5.  Age-sex registers as a screening tool for general practice: size of the wrong address problem.

Authors:  A J Silman
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1984-08-18

6.  The accuracy of age-sex registers in general practice.

Authors:  M G Sheldon; A L Rector; P A Barnes
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1984-05

7.  The accuracy of age-sex registers, practice medical records and family practitioner committee registers.

Authors:  R C Fraser; D G Clayton
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1981-07
  7 in total
  14 in total

1.  Provision of, and patient satisfaction with, primary care services in a relatively affluent area and a relatively deprived area of Glasgow.

Authors:  S Wyke; G Campbell; S Maciver
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 2.  General surgery.

Authors:  I Taylor
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 2.401

3.  Accuracy of family practitioner committee registers.

Authors:  J P Nicholl; P Coleman; L Westlake; B T Williams
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-08-12

4.  The politics of inadequate registers.

Authors:  M White; R Bhopal
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-08-26

5.  Evaluation of the use of general practice age-sex registers in epidemiological research.

Authors:  K Walsh
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Inaccuracy of FHSA registers: help from electoral registers.

Authors:  G Bickler; S Sutton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-05-01

7.  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

8.  Better ways of assessing health needs in primary care.

Authors:  J Shanks; S Kheraj; S Fish
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-02-25

9.  Breast screening and ethnic minorities.

Authors:  T Hoare
Journal:  Br J Cancer Suppl       Date:  1996-09

10.  Breast screening: a randomised controlled trial in UK general practice of three interventions designed to increase uptake.

Authors:  D J Sharp; T J Peters; J Bartholomew; A Shaw
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 3.710

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.