These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9678615)
1. Promoting participation in a population screening program for breast and cervical cancer: a randomized trial of different invitation strategies. Segnan N; Senore C; Giordano L; Ponti A; Ronco G Tumori; 1998; 84(3):348-53. PubMed ID: 9678615 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Strategies for increasing women participation in community breast cancer screening. Bonfill X; Marzo M; Pladevall M; Martí J; Emparanza JI Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2001; 2001(1):CD002943. PubMed ID: 11279781 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. How to increase uptake in oncologic screening: a systematic review of studies comparing population-based screening programs and spontaneous access. Ferroni E; Camilloni L; Jimenez B; Furnari G; Borgia P; Guasticchi G; Giorgi Rossi P; Prev Med; 2012 Dec; 55(6):587-96. PubMed ID: 23064024 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. General practitioners and mammographic screening uptake: influence of different modalities of general practitioner participation. Working Group. Giorgi D; Giordano L; Senore C; Merlino G; Negri R; Cancian M; Lerda M; Segnan N; Del Turco MR Tumori; 2000; 86(2):124-9. PubMed ID: 10855848 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
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. 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]
9. Improving breast screening uptake: persuading initial non-attenders to attend. Turner KM; Wilson BJ; Gilbert FJ J Med Screen; 1994 Jul; 1(3):199-202. PubMed ID: 8790517 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The use of text messages as an alternative invitation method for breast cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial (M-TICS study). Vives N; Vidal C; de Guzman EN; Farre A; Panera JA; Binefa G; Garcia M; PLoS One; 2024; 19(8):e0306720. PubMed ID: 39208325 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. General practitioner based screening for cervical cancer: higher participation of women with a higher risk? Kant AC; Palm BT; Wentink E; van Weel C J Med Screen; 1997; 4(1):35-9. PubMed ID: 9200061 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Cervical cancer screening uptake: A randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of sending invitation letters to non-adherent women combined with sending their general practitioners a list of their non-adherent patients (study protocol). Teigné D; Banaszuk AS; Grimault C; Abes L; Gaultier A; Rat C Front Public Health; 2022; 10():1035288. PubMed ID: 36438208 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A cluster randomised trial of strategies to increase cervical screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC). Kitchener HC; Gittins M; Rivero-Arias O; Tsiachristas A; Cruickshank M; Gray A; Brabin L; Torgerson D; Crosbie EJ; Sargent A; Roberts C Health Technol Assess; 2016 Sep; 20(68):1-138. PubMed ID: 27632816 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Study protocol for the most effective recall method in a cervical cancer screening program in Klang, Malaysia. Abdul Rashid RM; Dahlui M Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2013; 14(10):5867-70. PubMed ID: 24289591 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Recruitment for breast screening in a rural practice. Trial of a physician's letter of invitation. Bass B; Pross D; Bell P Can Fam Physician; 1994 Oct; 40():1730-9. PubMed ID: 7950468 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Improving uptake in non-attenders of breast screening: selective use of second appointment. Stead MJ; Wallis MG; Wheaton ME J Med Screen; 1998; 5(2):69-72. PubMed ID: 9718524 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Women's knowledge about cervical cancer risk factors, screening, and reasons for non-participation in cervical cancer screening programme in Estonia. Kivistik A; Lang K; Baili P; Anttila A; Veerus P BMC Womens Health; 2011 Sep; 11():43. PubMed ID: 21951661 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]