Literature DB >> 8205021

Using patient and general practice characteristics to explain variations in cervical smear uptake rates.

F A Majeed1, D G Cook, H R Anderson, S Hilton, S Bunn, C Stones.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To produce practice and patient variables for general practices from census and family health services authority data, and to determine the importance of these variables in explaining variation in cervical smear uptake rates between practices.
DESIGN: Population based study examining variations in cervical smear uptake rates among 126 general practices using routine data.
SETTING: Merton, Sutton, and Wandsworth Family Health Services Authority, which covers parts of inner and outer London. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Percentage of women aged 25-64 years registered with a general practitioner who had undergone a cervical smear test during the five and a half years preceding 31 March 1992.
RESULTS: Cervical smear uptake rates varied from 16.5% to 94.1%. The estimated percentage of practice population from ethnic minority groups correlated negatively with uptake rates (r = -0.42), as did variables associated with social deprivation such as overcrowding (r = -0.42), not owning a car (r = -0.41), and unemployment (r = -0.40). Percentage of practice population under 5 years of age correlated positively with uptake rate (r = 0.42). Rates were higher in practices with a female partner than in those without (66.6% v 49.1%; difference 17.5% (95% confidence interval 10.5% to 24.5%)), and in computerised than in non-computerised practices (64.5% v 50.5%; 14.0% (6.4% to 21.6%)). Rates were higher in larger practices. In a stepwise multiple regression model that explained 52% of variation, five factors were significant predictors of uptake rates: presence of a female partner; children under 5; overcrowding; number of women aged 35-44 as percentage of all women aged 25-64; change of address in past year.
CONCLUSIONS: Over half of variation in cervical smear uptake rates can be explained by patient and practice variables derived from census and family health services authority data; these variables may have a role in explaining variations in performance of general practices and in producing adjusted measures of practice performance. Practices with a female partner had substantially higher uptake rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8205021      PMCID: PMC2540205          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.308.6939.1272

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


  16 in total

1.  Provision of health promotion clinics in relation to population need: another example of the inverse care law?

Authors:  S J Gillam
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  The efficacy of a national Family Health Services Authority based cervical cytology system.

Authors:  J Amery; R Beardow; J Oerton; C Victor
Journal:  Health Trends       Date:  1992

3.  High and low incomes in general practice.

Authors:  B Leese; N Bosanquet
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-04-08

4.  Screening: the inadequacy of population registers.

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

5.  Providing census data for general practice. 1. Feasibility.

Authors:  A Hutchinson; C Foy; J Smyth
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1987-10

6.  Providing census data for general practice. 2. Usefulness.

Authors:  C Foy; A Hutchinson; J Smyth
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1987-10

7.  Identification of underprivileged areas.

Authors:  B Jarman
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1983-05-28

8.  Underprivileged areas: validation and distribution of scores.

Authors:  B Jarman
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1984-12-08

9.  Cervical screening in an inner city area: response to a call system in general practice.

Authors:  K J Shroff; A M Corrigan; M Bosher; M P Edmonds; D Sacks; D V Coleman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1988-11-19

10.  Wide variations in the night visiting rate.

Authors:  T P Usherwood; M A Kapasi; J H Barber
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1985-08
View more
  40 in total

1.  Lessons from the London Initiative Zone Educational Incentives funding: associations between practice characteristics, funding, and courses undertaken.

Authors:  S A Hull; J Tissier; K Moser; C J Derrett; Y H Carter; S Eldridge
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  The relationship between census-derived socio-economic variables and general practice consultation rates in three town centre practices.

Authors:  R Carlisle; S Johnstone
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Using routine comparative data to assess the quality of health care: understanding and avoiding common pitfalls.

Authors:  A E Powell; H T O Davies; R G Thomson
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2003-04

4.  Uptake of breast screening is influenced by current religion and religion of upbringing.

Authors:  Dermot O'Reilly; Heather Kinnear; Michael Rosato; Adrian Mairs; Clare Hall
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2013-12

5.  Home visiting by general practitioners in England and Wales.

Authors:  P Aylin; F A Majeed; D G Cook
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-07-27

Review 6.  Access to health care for ethnic minority populations.

Authors:  A Szczepura
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.401

7.  Best practice in primary care.

Authors:  Pippa Oakeshott; Phillip Hay
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-07-22

8.  Do standardised patients lose their confidence in primary medical care? Personal experiences of standardised patients with GPs.

Authors:  Martin Sielk; Silke Brockmann; Christa Spannaus-Sakic; Stefan Wilm
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  Cervical screening in the inner cities: is the opportunistic approach still worthwhile?

Authors:  H Stirland; O A Husain; E B Butler; S Cater; K S Russell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-09-07

10.  Influence of sex of general practitioner on management of menorrhagia.

Authors:  A Coulter; V Peto; H Doll
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 5.386

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.