148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31300499)
21. 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]
22. Development and field testing of a tool to elicit women's preferences among cervical cancer screening modalities.
Wood B; Taljaard M; El-Khatib Z; McFaul S; Graham ID; Little J
J Eval Clin Pract; 2019 Dec; 25(6):1169-1181. PubMed ID: 31423705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Preferences for interventions designed to increase cervical screening uptake in non-attending young women: How findings from a discrete choice experiment compare with observed behaviours in a trial.
Campbell HE; Gray AM; Watson J; Jackson C; Moseley C; Cruickshank ME; Kitchener HC; Rivero-Arias O
Health Expect; 2020 Feb; 23(1):202-211. PubMed ID: 31659850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Women's preferences for communication with the cervical screening programme: A qualitative study.
Ravindran R; Cotton S; Cruickshank M
Cytopathology; 2020 Jan; 31(1):47-52. PubMed ID: 31677212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Socio-demographic correlates of cervical cancer risk factor knowledge among screening non-participants in Great Britain.
Ryan M; Marlow L; Waller J
Prev Med; 2019 Aug; 125():1-4. PubMed ID: 31085204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The Acceptability and Preference of Vaginal Self-sampling for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Testing among a Multi-ethnic Asian Female Population.
Khoo SP; Lim WT; Rajasuriar R; Nasir NH; Gravitt P; Woo YL
Cancer Prev Res (Phila); 2021 Jan; 14(1):105-112. PubMed ID: 32917643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Improving intervention design to promote cervical cancer screening among hard-to-reach women: assessing beliefs and predicting individual attendance probabilities in Bogotá, Colombia.
Barrera Ferro D; Bayer S; Brailsford S; Smith H
BMC Womens Health; 2022 Jun; 22(1):212. PubMed ID: 35672816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Comparison of two invitation-based methods for human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling with usual care among un- and under-screened Māori, Pacific and Asian women: study protocol for a randomised controlled community trial to examine the effect of self-sampling on participation in cervical-cancer screening.
Brewer N; Bartholomew K; Maxwell A; Grant J; McPherson G; Wihongi H; Bromhead C; Scott N; Crengle S; Cunningham C; Douwes J; Potter JD
BMC Cancer; 2019 Dec; 19(1):1198. PubMed ID: 31815615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Barriers to cervical cancer screening in women attending the Family Medical Program in Niterói, Rio de Janeiro.
Augusto EF; Rosa ML; Cavalcanti SM; Oliveira LH
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2013 Jan; 287(1):53-8. PubMed ID: 22886356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Self-sampling for cervical screening offered at the point of invitation: A cross-sectional study of preferences in England.
Drysdale H; Marlow LA; Lim A; Sasieni P; Waller J
J Med Screen; 2022 Sep; 29(3):194-202. PubMed ID: 35389282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Women's experience with home-based self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing.
Sultana F; Mullins R; English DR; Simpson JA; Drennan KT; Heley S; Wrede CD; Brotherton JM; Saville M; Gertig DM
BMC Cancer; 2015 Nov; 15():849. PubMed ID: 26536865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. US women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer: a cross-sectional population-based observational study.
Harper DM; Plegue M; Jimbo M; Sheinfeld Gorin S; Sen A
Elife; 2022 Jun; 11():. PubMed ID: 35762572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Do reasoned action approach variables mediate relationships between demographics and cervical cancer screening intentions or behaviour? An online study of women from the UK.
Wilding S; Prudenzi A; Conner M; O'Connor DB
Soc Sci Med; 2022 Nov; 313():115354. PubMed ID: 36191387
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Knowledge, attitudes, practices, and perceived risk of cervical cancer among Kenyan women: brief report.
Sudenga SL; Rositch AF; Otieno WA; Smith JS
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2013 Jun; 23(5):895-9. PubMed ID: 23694983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Cervical screening uptake: A cross-sectional study of self-reported screening attitudes, behaviours and barriers to participation among South Asian immigrant women living in Australia.
Alam Z; Ann Dean J; Janda M
Womens Health (Lond); 2022; 18():17455057221096240. PubMed ID: 35509249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. A population survey on beliefs around cervical cancer screening: determining the barriers and facilitators associated with attendance.
Judah G; Dilib F; Darzi A; Huf S
BMC Cancer; 2022 May; 22(1):522. PubMed ID: 35534802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Acceptability of non-speculum clinician sampling for cervical screening in older women: A qualitative study.
Freeman M; Waller J; Sasieni P; Lim AW; Marlow LA
J Med Screen; 2018 Dec; 25(4):205-210. PubMed ID: 29439604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Women's intentions to self-collect samples for human papillomavirus testing in an organized cervical cancer screening program.
Smith LW; Khurshed F; van Niekerk DJ; Krajden M; Greene SB; Hobbs S; Coldman AJ; Franco EL; Ogilvie GS
BMC Public Health; 2014 Oct; 14():1060. PubMed ID: 25303975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Understanding cervical screening non-attendance among ethnic minority women in England.
Marlow LA; Wardle J; Waller J
Br J Cancer; 2015 Sep; 113(5):833-9. PubMed ID: 26171938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
