421 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19228681)
1. 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]
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. [Characterization of "non-attenders" in an organized screening against cancer of cervix uteri].
Larsen LP; Olesen F
Ugeskr Laeger; 1996 May; 158(21):2987-91. PubMed ID: 8686037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effect of an antepartum Pap smear on the coverage of a cervical cancer screening programme: a population-based prospective study.
Nygård M; Daltveit AK; Thoresen SO; Nygård JF
BMC Health Serv Res; 2007 Jan; 7():10. PubMed ID: 17244348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. [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]
9. 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]
10. [Barriers in screening for cervical cancer].
Espersen MM; Holten IW
Ugeskr Laeger; 2005 Nov; 167(46):4371-4. PubMed ID: 16287523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Cervical cancer screening: women's knowledge, attitudes and preferences.
Nicoll PM; Narayan KV; Paterson JG
Health Bull (Edinb); 1991 May; 49(3):184-90. PubMed ID: 1917453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cervical cancer screening programme in Primorsko-Goranska County, Croatia--the results of the pilot study.
Vrdoljak-Mozetic D; Ostojić DV; Stemberger-Papić S; Janković S; Glibotić-Kresina H; Brncić-Fischer A; Benić-Salamon K
Coll Antropol; 2010 Mar; 34(1):225-32. PubMed ID: 20437641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Cluster-randomised trial of risk communication to enhance informed uptake of cervical screening.
Holloway RM; Wilkinson C; Peters TJ; Russell I; Cohen D; Hale J; Rogers C; Lewis H
Br J Gen Pract; 2003 Aug; 53(493):620-5. PubMed ID: 14601338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Addressing Taiwan's high incidence of cervical cancer: factors associated with the Nation's low compliance with Papanicolaou screening in Taiwan.
Liao CC; Wang HY; Lin RS; Hsieh CY; Sung FC
Public Health; 2006 Dec; 120(12):1170-6. PubMed ID: 17074376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Attendance rate in the Polish Cervical Cancer Screening Program in the years 2007-2009].
Spaczyński M; Karowicz-Bilinska A; Rokita W; Molińska-Glura M; Januszek-Michalecka L; Seroczyński P; Uchlik J; Nowak-Markwitz E
Ginekol Pol; 2010 Sep; 81(9):655-63. PubMed ID: 20973201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Adherence to cervical and breast cancer programs is crucial to improving screening performance.
Mauad EC; Nicolau SM; Moreira LF; Haikel RL; Longatto-Filho A; Baracat EC
Rural Remote Health; 2009; 9(3):1241. PubMed ID: 19778158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Attitudes of Colorado health professionals toward breast and cervical cancer screening in Hispanic women.
Bakemeier RF; Krebs LU; Murphy JR; Shen Z; Ryals T
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 1995; (18):95-100. PubMed ID: 8562228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cervical screening: Perceptions and barriers to uptake among Somali women in Camden.
Abdullahi A; Copping J; Kessel A; Luck M; Bonell C
Public Health; 2009 Oct; 123(10):680-5. PubMed ID: 19863980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Screening history of women in Malmö with invasive cervical cancer.
Lindqvist PG; Hellsten C; Rippe A
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2008 Mar; 137(1):77-83. PubMed ID: 17210219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Mammography screening for breast cancer in Copenhagen April 1991-March 1997. Mammography Screening Evaluation Group.
Lynge E
APMIS Suppl; 1998; 83():1-44. PubMed ID: 9850674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
