Literature DB >> 8298385

An economic view of high compliance as a screening objective.

D J Torgerson1, C Donaldson.   

Abstract

Accepted wisdom holds that high compliance is essential for a screening programme to be successful. Indeed, a reason that the national breast screening programme is not routinely offered to women aged 65 or more is on the grounds of predicted poor compliance by older women. Increasing compliance is often associated with increased costs. These costs represent a lost opportunity for screening alternative target populations. We question the need for screening programmes to achieve high compliance, and we argue that a screening programme can be efficient with very low levels of compliance. Adopting compliance as a screening objective and as a measure of the success of screening may be detrimental to the efficiency of a screening programme.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8298385      PMCID: PMC2539240          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.308.6921.117

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


  6 in total

Review 1.  Economic issues in screening mammography.

Authors:  R A Clark
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Compliance with breast cancer screening achieved by the Aylesbury Vale mobile service (1984-1988).

Authors:  E M Williams; M P Vessey
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  1990-02

3.  Randomised trial of two strategies offering women mobile screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  E M Williams; M P Vessey
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-07-15

4.  The Swedish two county trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer: recent results and calculation of benefit.

Authors:  L Tabar; G Fagerberg; S W Duffy; N E Day
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 3.710

5.  National Health Service breast screening programme results for 1991-2.

Authors:  J Chamberlain; S M Moss; A E Kirkpatrick; M Michell; L Johns
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-08-07

6.  Invitation to attend a health check in a general practice setting: comparison of attenders and non-attenders.

Authors:  R Pill; J French; K Harding; N Stott
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1988-02
  6 in total
  15 in total

1.  What are the benefits of preventive health care?

Authors:  G Salkeld
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  1998-06

Review 2.  Cancer screening.

Authors:  A Barratt; P Mannes; L Irwig; L Trevena; J Craig; L Rychetnik
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 3.  How can we develop a cost-effective quality cervical screening programme?

Authors:  Sue Wilson; Helen Lester
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Effective Health Care bulletins: are they efficient?

Authors:  D Torgerson; M Ryan; C Donaldson
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1995-03

Review 5.  Informed choice for screening: implications for evaluation.

Authors:  Les Irwig; Kirsten McCaffery; Glenn Salkeld; Patrick Bossuyt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-05-13

6.  Clinical and economic arguments favour extension to upper age limit for breast screening.

Authors:  D J Torgerson; T Gosden
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-06-13

7.  Cervical cancer: screening hard-to-reach groups.

Authors:  E Grunfeld
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1997-09-01       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  Compliance in screening programmes.

Authors:  D Torgerson; C Donaldson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-04-09

9.  Compliance in screening programmes. High compliance essential in cervical screening programme...

Authors:  D Jenkins; S Gallivan; C Sherlaw-Johnson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-03-05

10.  A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Sian K Smith; Lyndal Trevena; Judy M Simpson; Alexandra Barratt; Don Nutbeam; Kirsten J McCaffery
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-10-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.