229 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16417695)
1. Improving uptake of cervical cancer screening in women with prolonged history of non-attendance for screening: a randomized trial of enhanced invitation methods.
Stein K; Lewendon G; Jenkins R; Davis C
J Med Screen; 2005; 12(4):185-9. PubMed ID: 16417695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A large population-based randomized controlled trial to increase attendance at screening for cervical cancer.
Eaker S; Adami HO; Granath F; Wilander E; Sparén P
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2004 Mar; 13(3):346-54. PubMed ID: 15006907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The safety net: a cost-effective approach to improving breast and cervical cancer screening.
Vogt TM; Glass A; Glasgow RE; La Chance PA; Lichtenstein E
J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2003 Oct; 12(8):789-98. PubMed ID: 14588129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Promotion of cervical screening among nonattendees: a partial cost-effectiveness analysis.
Oscarsson MG; Benzein EG; Wijma BE; Carlsson PG
Eur J Cancer Prev; 2007 Dec; 16(6):559-63. PubMed ID: 18090130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Cost effective analysis of recall methods for cervical cancer screening in Selangor--results from a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Rashid RM; Ramli S; John J; Dahlui M
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2014; 15(13):5143-7. PubMed ID: 25040965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Increasing participation in cervical cancer screening: offering a HPV self-test to long-term non-attendees as part of RACOMIP, a Swedish randomized controlled trial.
Broberg G; Gyrd-Hansen D; Miao Jonasson J; Ryd ML; Holtenman M; Milsom I; Strander B
Int J Cancer; 2014 May; 134(9):2223-30. PubMed ID: 24127304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two primary care interventions aimed at improving attendance for breast screening.
Richards SH; Bankhead C; Peters TJ; Austoker J; Hobbs FD; Brown J; Tydeman C; Roberts L; Formby J; Redman V; Wilson S; Sharp DJ
J Med Screen; 2001; 8(2):91-8. PubMed ID: 11480450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A quasi-randomized trial on the effectiveness of an invitation letter to improve participation in a setting of opportunistic screening for cervical cancer.
de Jonge E; Cloes E; Op de Beeck L; Adriaens B; Lousbergh D; Orye GG; Buntinx F
Eur J Cancer Prev; 2008 Jun; 17(3):238-42. PubMed ID: 18414195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effectiveness of a call/recall system in improving compliance with cervical cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial.
Buehler SK; Parsons WL
CMAJ; 1997 Sep; 157(5):521-6. PubMed ID: 9294390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluating the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening invitation letters.
Decker KM; Turner D; Demers AA; Martens PJ; Lambert P; Chateau D
J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2013 Aug; 22(8):687-93. PubMed ID: 23915107
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Self-sampling versus reminder letter: effects on cervical cancer screening attendance and coverage in Finland.
Virtanen A; Anttila A; Luostarinen T; Nieminen P
Int J Cancer; 2011 Jun; 128(11):2681-7. PubMed ID: 20669228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A primary healthcare-based intervention to improve a Danish cervical cancer screening programme: a cluster randomised controlled trial.
Jensen H; Svanholm H; Støvring H; Bro F
J Epidemiol Community Health; 2009 Jul; 63(7):510-5. PubMed ID: 19228681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cervical Cancer Screening Using a Systematic Invitation System in Lithuania.
Paulauskiene J; Stelemekas M; Ivanauskiene R; Petkeviciene J
Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2019 Dec; 16(24):. PubMed ID: 31835649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Cost-effectiveness of strategies to increase screening coverage for cervical cancer in Spain: the CRIVERVA study.
Trapero-Bertran M; Acera Pérez A; de Sanjosé S; Manresa Domínguez JM; Rodríguez Capriles D; Rodriguez Martinez A; Bonet Simó JM; Sanchez Sanchez N; Hidalgo Valls P; Díaz Sanchis M
BMC Public Health; 2017 Feb; 17(1):194. PubMed ID: 28196467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Mailed Letter Versus Phone Call to Increase Uptake of Cancer Screening: A Pragmatic, Randomized Trial.
Kiran T; Davie S; Moineddin R; Lofters A
J Am Board Fam Med; 2018; 31(6):857-868. PubMed ID: 30413542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Screening HMO women overdue for both mammograms and pap tests.
Valanis BG; Glasgow RE; Mullooly J; Vogt TM; Whitlock EP; Boles SM; Smith KS; Kimes TM
Prev Med; 2002 Jan; 34(1):40-50. PubMed ID: 11749095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cervical screening in general practice: call and recall.
Ridsdale LL
J R Coll Gen Pract; 1987 Jun; 37(299):257-9. PubMed ID: 3129556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Improving breast screening uptake: persuading initial non-attenders to attend.
Turner KM; Wilson BJ; Gilbert FJ
J Med Screen; 1994 Jul; 1(3):199-202. PubMed ID: 8790517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An examination of the role of opportunistic smear taking in the NHS cervical screening programme using data from the CSEU cervical screening cohort study.
Blanks RG; Moss SM; Coleman DA; Swerdlow AJ
BJOG; 2007 Nov; 114(11):1408-13. PubMed ID: 17803716
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Preliminary results of a general practice based call system for cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands.
Palm BT; Kant AC; van den Bosch WJ; Vooijs GP; van Weel C
Br J Gen Pract; 1993 Dec; 43(377):503-6. PubMed ID: 8312021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
