84 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24069641)
1. [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]
2. Improving cervical cancer screening attendance in Finland.
Virtanen A; Anttila A; Luostarinen T; Malila N; Nieminen P
Int J Cancer; 2015 Mar; 136(6):E677-84. PubMed ID: 25178683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Self-sample HPV tests as an intervention for nonattendees of cervical cancer screening in Finland: a randomized trial.
Virtanen A; Nieminen P; Luostarinen T; Anttila A
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2011 Sep; 20(9):1960-9. PubMed ID: 21752985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The costs of offering HPV-testing on self-taken samples to non-attendees of cervical screening in Finland.
Virtanen A; Anttila A; Nieminen P
BMC Womens Health; 2015 Nov; 15():99. PubMed ID: 26542953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Self-sampling to increase participation in cervical cancer screening: an RCT comparing home mailing, distribution in pharmacies, and recall letter.
Giorgi Rossi P; Fortunato C; Barbarino P; Boveri S; Caroli S; Del Mistro A; Ferro A; Giammaria C; Manfredi M; Moretto T; Pasquini A; Sideri M; Tufi MC; Cogo C; Altobelli E;
Br J Cancer; 2015 Feb; 112(4):667-75. PubMed ID: 25633037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Cervical cancer screening: a prospective cohort study of the effects of historical patient compliance and a population-based informatics prompted reminder on screening rates.
MacLaughlin KL; Swanson KM; Naessens JM; Angstman KB; Chaudhry R
J Eval Clin Pract; 2014 Apr; 20(2):136-43. PubMed ID: 24237657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The potential role of self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus detection in cervical cancer screening.
Schmeink CE; Bekkers RL; Massuger LF; Melchers WJ
Rev Med Virol; 2011 May; 21(3):139-53. PubMed ID: 21538664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in Norway: a randomised intervention.
Lönnberg S; Andreassen T; Engesæter B; Lilleng R; Kleven C; Skare A; Johansson K; Fredheim CS; Tropé A
BMJ Open; 2016 Nov; 6(11):e013728. PubMed ID: 28186949
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Impact of second reminder invitation on uptake of screening and cancer detection in BreastCheck.
Fleming P; Mooney T; Fitzpatrick P
Ir Med J; 2012 Jan; 105(1):7-9. PubMed ID: 22397204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: comparison of a brush-based and a lavage-based cervicovaginal self-sampling device.
Karjalainen L; Anttila A; Nieminen P; Luostarinen T; Virtanen A
BMC Cancer; 2016 Mar; 16():221. PubMed ID: 26979237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Age-specific effectiveness of the Finnish cervical cancer screening programme.
Lönnberg S; Anttila A; Luostarinen T; Nieminen P
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2012 Aug; 21(8):1354-61. PubMed ID: 22665576
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Self-Sampling for Human Papillomavirus Testing among Non-Attenders Increases Attendance to the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Programme.
Enerly E; Bonde J; Schee K; Pedersen H; Lönnberg S; Nygård M
PLoS One; 2016; 11(4):e0151978. PubMed ID: 27073929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparative effectiveness of two outreach strategies for cervical cancer screening.
Bowles EJ; Gao H; Brandzel S; Bradford SC; Buist DS
Prev Med; 2016 May; 86():19-27. PubMed ID: 26820221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Reaching women who do not participate in the regular cervical cancer screening programme by offering self-sampling kits: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.
Verdoodt F; Jentschke M; Hillemanns P; Racey CS; Snijders PJ; Arbyn M
Eur J Cancer; 2015 Nov; 51(16):2375-85. PubMed ID: 26296294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
