79 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21791902)
1. A prospective randomized study of two reminding strategies: telephone versus mail in the screening of cervical cancer in women who did not initially respond.
Heranney D; Fender M; Velten M; Baldauf JJ
Acta Cytol; 2011; 55(4):334-40. PubMed ID: 21791902
[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. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Impact of invitation and reminder letters on cervical cancer screening participation rates in an organized screening program.
Tavasoli SM; Pefoyo AJ; Hader J; Lee A; Kupets R
Prev Med; 2016 Jul; 88():230-6. PubMed ID: 27143497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. A cost-effectiveness comparison of three tailored interventions to increase mammography screening.
Saywell RM; Champion VL; Skinner CS; Menon U; Daggy J
J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2004 Oct; 13(8):909-18. PubMed ID: 15671706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Self-sampling and reminder letters increase participation in the Finnish cervical cancer screening programme].
Virtanen A; Nieminen P; Malila N; Luostarinen T; Anttila A
Duodecim; 2013; 129(16):1709-17. PubMed ID: 24069641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Cost effectiveness analysis of screening strategies for cervical cancer in Tunisia].
Lazaar HB; Aounallah-Skhiri H; Oueslati F; Frikha H; Achour N; Hsairi M
East Mediterr Health J; 2010 Jun; 16(6):602-8. PubMed ID: 20799586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Cost-effectiveness of cervical-cancer screening in five developing countries.
Goldie SJ; Gaffikin L; Goldhaber-Fiebert JD; Gordillo-Tobar A; Levin C; Mahé C; Wright TC;
N Engl J Med; 2005 Nov; 353(20):2158-68. PubMed ID: 16291985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Costs and effects of alternative screening programs against cervical cancer].
Gyrd-Hansen D; Hølund B; Andersen P
Ugeskr Laeger; 1996 Aug; 158(35):4912-5. PubMed ID: 8801698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Participation in cervical cancer screening by age and region--a cohort study with a 3 1/2 year follow-up on 2,223,135 women in Bavaria.
Rückinger S; Tauscher M; Redel R; Munte A; Walchner-Bonjean M; Hess J; Schneider A; von Kries R
Gesundheitswesen; 2008 Jun; 70(6):e17-21. PubMed ID: 18661453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The cost-effectiveness of cervical screening in Australia: what is the impact of screening at different intervals or over a different age range?
Anderson R; Haas M; Shanahan M
Aust N Z J Public Health; 2008 Feb; 32(1):43-52. PubMed ID: 18290913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
