79 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21791902)
41. Participation in breast cancer screening: randomised controlled trials of doctors' letters and of telephone reminders.
Richardson A; Williams S; Elwood M; Bahr M; Medlicott T
Aust J Public Health; 1994 Sep; 18(3):290-2. PubMed ID: 7841259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. [Evaluation of the information received by women participating in a cervical cancer screening programme].
Hernández MR; Prieto M; Cofiño Fernández R
Gac Sanit; 2015; 29(6):476-7. PubMed ID: 26387463
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
43. Effect of e-mail versus postal reminders for mammogram screening.
Chaudhry R; Cabanela R; Rahman A; McMurtry E; Leutink D; Scheitel S; Naessens JM
AMIA Annu Symp Proc; 2006; 2006():879. PubMed ID: 17238499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. [Disputable and unsolved aspects of mass screening].
Krivoruchko ZA; Rafaliuk NIa; Shuster LA
Sov Zdravookhr; 1991; (8):48-51. PubMed ID: 1962240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. [Cost-benefit considerations in screening for cervical cancer].
Pedersen K
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2015 Jun; 135(11):1022-3. PubMed ID: 26080774
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
46. The cost effectiveness of cervical cancer screening.
Miller AB
Ann Intern Med; 1992 Sep; 117(6):529-30. PubMed ID: 1503357
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
47. Cost-effectiveness of childhood immunization reminder/recall systems in urban private practices.
Franzini L; Rosenthal J; Spears W; Martin HS; Balderas L; Brown M; Milne G; Drutz J; Evans D; Kozinetz C; Oettgen B; Hanson C
Pediatrics; 2000 Jul; 106(1 Pt 2):177-83. PubMed ID: 10888689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Current and potential use of new technologies for reminder notifications.
Dombkowski KJ; Harrington L; Hanauer D; Kennedy A; Clark S
Clin Pediatr (Phila); 2012 Apr; 51(4):394-7. PubMed ID: 22333573
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
49. Comment to: Inequalities in adherence to cervical cancer screening in Portugal.
Mihály-Vajda R; Csákvári T; Pónusz-Kovács D; Varga V; Kajos FL; Boncz I
Eur J Cancer Prev; 2022 May; 31(3):310-312. PubMed ID: 35383609
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
50. Methodological issues in a cross-sectional survey on cervical cancer screening using telephone interviews in Sicily (Italy): a SWOT analysis.
Costantino C; Mazzucco W; Marotta C; Saporito L; Bono S; Fiorino GR; Graziano G; Maniglia M; Marchese V; Napoli G; Palmeri S; Provenzano S; Raia DD; Santangelo OE; Ventura G; Colaceci S; Giusti A; Casuccio A; Restivo V
J Int Med Res; 2019 Oct; 47(10):5174-5184. PubMed ID: 31510892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Factors influencing the return rate in a direct mail campaign to inform minority women about prevention of cervical cancer.
Dignan MB; Michielutte R; Jones-Lighty DD; Bahnson J
Public Health Rep; 1994; 109(4):507-11. PubMed ID: 8041850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Optimizing recruitment to a prostate cancer surveillance program among male BRCA1 mutation carriers: invitation by mail or by telephone.
Galor A; Cybulski C; Lubiński J; Narod SA; Gronwald J
Hered Cancer Clin Pract; 2013 Dec; 11(1):17. PubMed ID: 24325841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Repeated attempts using different strategies are important for timely contact with study participants.
Chen KF; Colantuoni E; Siddiqi F; Dinglas VD; Sepulveda KA; Fan E; Pronovost PJ; Needham DM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Oct; 64(10):1144-51. PubMed ID: 21109398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. The case for cervical cancer screening.
Ibrahim MA
Am J Public Health; 1978 Feb; 68(2):114-5. PubMed ID: 415623
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
55. Older women and physical activity: using the telephone to walk.
Jarvis KL; Friedman RH; Heeren T; Cullinane PM
Womens Health Issues; 1997; 7(1):24-9. PubMed ID: 9009864
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
56. Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.
Staley H; Shiraz A; Shreeve N; Bryant A; Martin-Hirsch PP; Gajjar K
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2021 Sep; 9(9):CD002834. PubMed ID: 34694000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper: effects on professional practice and patient outcomes.
Pantoja T; Grimshaw JM; Colomer N; Castañon C; Leniz Martelli J
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2019 Dec; 12(12):CD001174. PubMed ID: 31858588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. 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]
59. Cervical morbidity in Alsace, France: results from a regional organized cervical cancer screening program.
Baldauf JJ; Fender M; Bergeron C; Marrer E; Velten M; Pradat P; Arbyn M
Eur J Cancer Prev; 2019 Jan; 28(1):33-39. PubMed ID: 29135538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. The Effect of Telephone Counseling and Education on Breast Cancer Screening in Family Caregivers of Breast Cancer Patients.
Nasiriani K; Motevasselian M; Farnia F; Shiryazdi SM; Khodayarian M
Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery; 2017 Oct; 5(4):306-316. PubMed ID: 29043277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
