Literature DB >> 9388791

Encouraging underscreened women to have cervical cancer screening: the effectiveness of a computer strategy.

E Campbell1, D Peterkin, R Abbott, J Rogers.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Computers that collect data from patients and provide both patients and practitioners with printed feedback on a range of health risks are a tool for assisting general practitioners with preventive care. This study assessed the impact of computer-generated printed feedback on cervical screening among women who were underscreened for cervical cancer.
METHOD: Female attenders at two Australian general practices were randomly allocated to Experimental or Control groups. Women in both groups completed a health risk survey on a touch screen computer prior to their consultation. Those in the Experimental group received printed pages summarizing their results, including their eligibility for cervical screening and last Pap test, for themselves and their doctor. The number and proportion of underscreened women who had a Pap test in the 6 months after completing the computer survey, as determined by pathology records, were examined.
RESULTS: Of the 679 participants, 139 were classified as underscreened on the basis of self-report (74 Experimental, 65 Control) and 272 on the basis of their pathology records (148 Experimental, 124 Control). Overall about one-third of women had a test in the 6-month period, and the differences between the groups were not significant for women overall (18-70 years) or for women 18-49 years. Among women 50-70 who were underscreened based on self-report, those receiving the printout were more likely to have a Pap test in the next 6 months (P < 0.05). This pattern was also evident, but did not reach statistical significance, for older women who were underscreened based on pathology records.
CONCLUSIONS: We are unable to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the computer system due to the modest proportions of women screened, the small numbers, and the fact that the computer survey may have created an intervention effect in the Control group. As the study suggests the computer system is acceptable to women and may be effective for encouraging screening among older women, further exploration of the system is desirable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9388791     DOI: 10.1006/pmed.1997.0195

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  Computer-generated patient education materials: do they affect professional practice? A systematic review.

Authors:  Shaun P Treweek; Claire Glenton; Andrew D Oxman; Alister Penrose
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Efficacy of a touchscreen computer based family cancer history questionnaire and subsequent cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  J Westman; H Hampel; T Bradley
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.318

Review 3.  Cancer risk assessment tools in primary care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  J G Walker; S Licqurish; P P C Chiang; M Pirotta; J D Emery
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 5.166

Review 4.  Review of computer-generated outpatient health behavior interventions: clinical encounters "in absentia".

Authors:  D Revere; P J Dunbar
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 5.  Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.

Authors:  Adrian G K Edwards; Gurudutt Naik; Harry Ahmed; Glyn J Elwyn; Timothy Pickles; Kerry Hood; Rebecca Playle
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-02-28

6.  Promotion of cancer family history awareness: Jameslink Cancer Risk Assessment Tool at community health fairs.

Authors:  Kimberly M Kelly; Kyle Porter; Amber Remy; Judith A Westman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2008-05-17       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 7.  Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.

Authors:  Thomas Everett; Andrew Bryant; Michelle F Griffin; Pierre Pl Martin-Hirsch; Carol A Forbes; Ruth G Jepson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-05-11

Review 8.  Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.

Authors:  Helen Staley; Aslam Shiraz; Norman Shreeve; Andrew Bryant; Pierre Pl Martin-Hirsch; Ketankumar Gajjar
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-09-06

Review 9.  Effect of cervical cancer education and provider recommendation for screening on screening rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jonah Musa; Chad J Achenbach; Linda C O'Dwyer; Charlesnika T Evans; Megan McHugh; Lifang Hou; Melissa A Simon; Robert L Murphy; Neil Jordan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice.

Authors:  Marita S Fønhus; Therese K Dalsbø; Marit Johansen; Atle Fretheim; Helge Skirbekk; Signe A Flottorp
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-09-11
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.