218 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27083776)
1. Invitation to cervical cancer screening does increase participation in Germany: Results from the MARZY study.
Radde K; Gottschalk A; Bussas U; Schülein S; Schriefer D; Seifert U; Neumann A; Kaiser M; Blettner M; Klug SJ
Int J Cancer; 2016 Sep; 139(5):1018-30. PubMed ID: 27083776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluating the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening invitation letters.
Decker KM; Turner D; Demers AA; Martens PJ; Lambert P; Chateau D
J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2013 Aug; 22(8):687-93. PubMed ID: 23915107
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effect of an Intervention in General Practice to Increase the Participation of Immigrants in Cervical Cancer Screening: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.
Møen KA; Kumar B; Igland J; Diaz E
JAMA Netw Open; 2020 Apr; 3(4):e201903. PubMed ID: 32236530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Factors associated with non-participation in cervical cancer screening - A nationwide study of nearly half a million women in Denmark.
Harder E; Juul KE; Jensen SM; Thomsen LT; Frederiksen K; Kjaer SK
Prev Med; 2018 Jun; 111():94-100. PubMed ID: 29501474
[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. 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]
7. Socio-economic and demographic determinants affecting participation in the Swedish cervical screening program: A population-based case-control study.
Broberg G; Wang J; Östberg AL; Adolfsson A; Nemes S; Sparén P; Strander B
PLoS One; 2018; 13(1):e0190171. PubMed ID: 29320536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cervical cancer screening in Germany: group-specific participation rates in the state of Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony). A study with health insurance data.
Geyer S; Jaunzeme J; Hillemanns P
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2015 Mar; 291(3):623-9. PubMed ID: 25138124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Impact of opportunistic screening on squamous cell and adenocarcinoma of the cervix in Germany: A population-based case-control study.
Tanaka LF; Schriefer D; Radde K; Schauberger G; Klug SJ
PLoS One; 2021; 16(7):e0253801. PubMed ID: 34260601
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Invitation coverage and participation in Italian cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening programmes.
Giorgi Rossi P; Carrozzi G; Federici A; Mancuso P; Sampaolo L; Zappa M
J Med Screen; 2018 Mar; 25(1):17-23. PubMed ID: 28614991
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Impact of a Doctor's Invitation on Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Cluster Randomized Trial.
Barthe J; Perrodeau E; Gilberg S; Ravaud P; Ghasarossian C; Marchand-Buttin F; Deyra J; Falcoff H
Am J Med; 2015 Sep; 128(9):1024.e1-7. PubMed ID: 25908395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Predictors of non-participation in cervical screening in Denmark.
Kristensson JH; Sander BB; von Euler-Chelpin M; Lynge E
Cancer Epidemiol; 2014 Apr; 38(2):174-80. PubMed ID: 24447699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Reinvitation to screening colonoscopy: a randomized-controlled trial of reminding letter and invitation to educational meeting on attendance in nonresponders to initial invitation to screening colonoscopy (REINVITE).
Pisera M; Kaminski MF; Kraszewska E; Rupinski M; Regula J
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2016 May; 28(5):538-42. PubMed ID: 26967693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Increasing Cervical Cancer Screening Coverage: A Randomised, Community-Based Clinical Trial.
Acera A; Manresa JM; Rodriguez D; Rodriguez A; Bonet JM; Trapero-Bertran M; Hidalgo P; Sànchez N; de Sanjosé S
PLoS One; 2017; 12(1):e0170371. PubMed ID: 28118410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Women's social conditions and their participation in Cervical Cancer Population Screening Program in Poland].
Spaczyński M; Nowak-Markwitz E; Januszek-Michalecka L; Karowicz-Bilińska A
Ginekol Pol; 2009 Nov; 80(11):833-8. PubMed ID: 20088397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Impact of altering the invitation package on screening participation among never-screeners in the Flemish population-based cancer screening programs.
Kellen E; Meers Z; Pil L; Goossens MC
Eur J Cancer Prev; 2024 Mar; 33(2):181-184. PubMed ID: 38190189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
