These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12407475)
21. How do women who choose not to participate in population-based cervical cancer screening reason about their decision? Blomberg K; Ternestedt BM; Törnberg S; Tishelman C Psychooncology; 2008 Jun; 17(6):561-9. PubMed ID: 17886262 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Coverage in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme, 1996-2005: correcting for the first invitation of women between 50 and 52 years. Bennett RL; Blanks RG; Moss SM J Public Health (Oxf); 2008 Jun; 30(2):167-70. PubMed ID: 18339650 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. A perspective from countries using organized screening programs. Miles A; Cockburn J; Smith RA; Wardle J Cancer; 2004 Sep; 101(5 Suppl):1201-13. PubMed ID: 15316915 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Prevention of cervical cancer with screening programme in Branicevo District and cost-effectiveness analysis adjusted to the territory of the Republic of Serbia. Perovic S J BUON; 2009; 14(1):93-6. PubMed ID: 19373953 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Women's perceptions and social barriers determine compliance to cervical screening: results from a population based study in India. Basu P; Sarkar S; Mukherjee S; Ghoshal M; Mittal S; Biswas S; Mandal R; Sankaranarayanan R Cancer Detect Prev; 2006; 30(4):369-74. PubMed ID: 16963194 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Primary care. LIZ (London Initiative Zone): a legacy for London. Lewis R; Williams S Health Serv J; 1998 Oct; 108(5624):24-7. PubMed ID: 10187264 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Cervical cancer screening program of Paraná: cost-effective model in a developing country. Bleggi Torres LF; Werner B; Totsugui J; Collaço LM; Araújo SR; Huçulak M; Boza EJ; Fischer RM; De Laat L; Sobbania LC; Raggio A Diagn Cytopathol; 2003 Jul; 29(1):49-54. PubMed ID: 12827718 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. [Participation in the Dutch national screening programme for uterine cervic cancer higher after invitation by a general practitioner, especially in groups with a traditional low level of attendance]. de Nooijer DP; de Waart FG; van Leeuwen AW; Spijker WW Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2005 Oct; 149(42):2339-43. PubMed ID: 16261714 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Health promotion interventions for disadvantaged women: overview of the WISEWOMAN projects. Will JC; Farris RP; Sanders CG; Stockmyer CK; Finkelstein EA J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2004 Jun; 13(5):484-502. PubMed ID: 15257842 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Effectiveness of letters to Cape Breton women who have not had a recent Pap smear. Johnston GM; Boyd CJ; MacIsaac MA; Rhodes JW; Grimshaw RN Chronic Dis Can; 2003; 24(2-3):49-56. PubMed ID: 12959674 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Cervical screening in HIV-positive women: characteristics of those who default and attitudes towards screening. Shah S; Montgomery H; Smith C; Madge S; Walker P; Evans H; Johnson M; Sabin C HIV Med; 2006 Jan; 7(1):46-52. PubMed ID: 16313292 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Cervical cancer in the developing world. Zeferino LC; Derchain SF Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol; 2006 Jun; 20(3):339-54. PubMed ID: 16563869 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. The management for tuberculosis control in Greater London in comparison with that in Osaka City: lessons for improvement of TB control management in Osaka City urban setting. Ohkado A; Williams G; Ishikawa N; Shimouchi A; Simon C Health Policy; 2005 Jul; 73(1):104-23. PubMed ID: 15911061 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Effects of a cognition-emotion focused program to increase public participation in Papanicolaou smear screening. Park S; Chang S; Chung C Public Health Nurs; 2005; 22(4):289-98. PubMed ID: 16150010 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Physician recommendation for papanicolaou testing among U.S. women, 2000. Coughlin SS; Breslau ES; Thompson T; Benard VB Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2005 May; 14(5):1143-8. PubMed ID: 15894664 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Why worry about awareness in choice problems? Econometric analysis of screening for cervical cancer. Belkar R; Fiebig DG; Haas M; Viney R Health Econ; 2006 Jan; 15(1):33-47. PubMed ID: 16145719 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Cost-effectiveness of organized versus opportunistic cervical cytology screening in Hong Kong. Kim JJ; Leung GM; Woo PP; Goldie SJ J Public Health (Oxf); 2004 Jun; 26(2):130-7. PubMed ID: 15284314 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. [The "Action Woman Health" program in three Lyons suburbs]. Mignotte H; Le Goaziou MF; Nachury LP; Pérol D; Fontaniere B; Fouillat V; Lasset C Sante Publique; 2000 May; 12 Spec No():45-58. PubMed ID: 10989628 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Cervical cancer screening policies and coverage in Europe. Anttila A; von Karsa L; Aasmaa A; Fender M; Patnick J; Rebolj M; Nicula F; Vass L; Valerianova Z; Voti L; Sauvaget C; Ronco G Eur J Cancer; 2009 Oct; 45(15):2649-58. PubMed ID: 19699081 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Sociocultural barriers to cervical screening in South Auckland, New Zealand. Lovell S; Kearns RA; Friesen W Soc Sci Med; 2007 Jul; 65(1):138-50. PubMed ID: 17433510 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]