72 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22424608)
1. Including questionnaires with the invitation package appeared to increase the response fraction among women.
Rogers PA; Haddow L; Thomson AK; Fritschi L; Girschik J; Boyle T; El Zaemey S; Heyworth JS
J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Jun; 65(6):696-9. PubMed ID: 22424608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Including the questionnaire with an invitation letter did not improve a telephone survey's response rate.
Byrne CM; Harrison JD; Young JM; Selby WS; Solomon MJ
J Clin Epidemiol; 2007 Dec; 60(12):1312-4. PubMed ID: 17998087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Format and readability of an enhanced invitation letter did not affect participation rates in a cancer registry-based study: a randomized controlled trial.
Hall AE; Sanson-Fisher RW; Lynagh MC; Threlfall T; D'Este CA
J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Jan; 66(1):85-94. PubMed ID: 23102853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A randomized controlled trial comparing three invitation strategies in a breast cancer screening program.
Segura JM; Castells X; Casamitjana M; Macià F; Porta M; Katz SJ
Prev Med; 2001 Oct; 33(4):325-32. PubMed ID: 11570837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Barriers to clinical trial participation by older women with breast cancer.
Kemeny MM; Peterson BL; Kornblith AB; Muss HB; Wheeler J; Levine E; Bartlett N; Fleming G; Cohen HJ
J Clin Oncol; 2003 Jun; 21(12):2268-75. PubMed ID: 12805325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Anxiety among women with mild dyskaryosis: a randomized trial of an educational intervention.
Peters T; Somerset M; Baxter K; Wilkinson C
Br J Gen Pract; 1999 May; 49(442):348-52. PubMed ID: 10736883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Participation in a women's breast cancer risk counseling trial. Who participates? Who declines? High Risk Breast Cancer Consortium.
Rimer BK; Schildkraut JM; Lerman C; Lin TH; Audrain J
Cancer; 1996 Jun; 77(11):2348-55. PubMed ID: 8635106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Mailing strategies and recruitment into an intervention trial of the exercise effect on breast cancer biomarkers.
Tworoger SS; Yasui Y; Ulrich CM; Nakamura H; LaCroix K; Johnston R; McTiernan A
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2002 Jan; 11(1):73-7. PubMed ID: 11815403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Prophylactic Oophorectomy: Reducing the U.S. Death Rate from Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. A Continuing Debate.
Piver MS
Oncologist; 1996; 1(5):326-330. PubMed ID: 10388011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Does a deadline improve men's participation in self-administered health surveys? A randomized controlled trial in general practice.
Gattellari M; Ward JE
J Public Health (Oxf); 2004 Dec; 26(4):384-7. PubMed ID: 15598859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Breast complaints during the Dutch nationwide breast cancer screening program: increased risk of referral and of breast cancer].
van Bon-Martens MJ; Klingenberg H; Dijkstra HA; Peeters PH
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2001 Jun; 145(22):1067-71. PubMed ID: 11414168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Electronic support groups for breast carcinoma: a clinical trial of effectiveness.
Lieberman MA; Golant M; Giese-Davis J; Winzlenberg A; Benjamin H; Humphreys K; Kronenwetter C; Russo S; Spiegel D
Cancer; 2003 Feb; 97(4):920-5. PubMed ID: 12569591
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The psychological effects of breast screening in terms of patients' perceived health anxieties.
Swanson V; McIntosh IB; Power KG; Dobson H
Br J Clin Pract; 1996; 50(3):129-35. PubMed ID: 8733330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Matched case-control study of quality of life and xerostomia after intensity-modulated radiotherapy or standard radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: initial report.
Jabbari S; Kim HM; Feng M; Lin A; Tsien C; Elshaikh M; Terrel JE; Murdoch-Kinch C; Eisbruch A
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2005 Nov; 63(3):725-31. PubMed ID: 16199308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Secondary healthcare contacts after multiphasic preventive health screening: a randomized trial.
Thomsen JL; Karlsmose B; Parner ET; Thulstrup AM; Lauritzen T; Engberg M
Scand J Public Health; 2006; 34(3):254-61. PubMed ID: 16754583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effectiveness and tolerability of colesevelam hydrochloride for bile-acid malabsorption in patients with cancer: a retrospective chart review and patient questionnaire.
Wedlake L; Thomas K; Lalji A; Anagnostopoulos C; Andreyev HJ
Clin Ther; 2009 Nov; 31(11):2549-58. PubMed ID: 20109999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparing different strategies for colorectal cancer screening in Italy: predictors of patients' participation.
Senore C; Armaroli P; Silvani M; Andreoni B; Bisanti L; Marai L; Castiglione G; Grazzini G; Taddei S; Gasperoni S; Giuliani O; Malfitana G; Marutti A; Genta G; Segnan N
Am J Gastroenterol; 2010 Jan; 105(1):188-98. PubMed ID: 19826409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Results and participation factors to the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) with Prostate Specific Antigen: French departments of Tarn and Hérault].
Jegu J; Tretarre B; Grosclaude P; Rebillard X; Bataille V; Malavaud B; Iborra F; Salama G; Rischmann P; Villers A
Prog Urol; 2009 Jul; 19(7):487-98. PubMed ID: 19559380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
