Cargando…

Impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in Norway: a randomised intervention

BACKGROUND: The main barrier to optimal effect in many established population-based screening programmes against cervical cancer is low participation. In Norway, a routine health service integrated population-based screening programme has been running since 1995, using open invitations and reminders...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lönnberg, Stefan, Andreassen, Trude, Engesæter, Birgit, Lilleng, Rune, Kleven, Cecilia, Skare, Annelie, Johansson, Karin, Fredheim, Christina Stangeland, Tropé, Ameli
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5128903/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28186949
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013728
_version_ 1782470497423851520
author Lönnberg, Stefan
Andreassen, Trude
Engesæter, Birgit
Lilleng, Rune
Kleven, Cecilia
Skare, Annelie
Johansson, Karin
Fredheim, Christina Stangeland
Tropé, Ameli
author_facet Lönnberg, Stefan
Andreassen, Trude
Engesæter, Birgit
Lilleng, Rune
Kleven, Cecilia
Skare, Annelie
Johansson, Karin
Fredheim, Christina Stangeland
Tropé, Ameli
author_sort Lönnberg, Stefan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The main barrier to optimal effect in many established population-based screening programmes against cervical cancer is low participation. In Norway, a routine health service integrated population-based screening programme has been running since 1995, using open invitations and reminders. The aim of this randomised health service study was to pilot scheduled appointments and assess their potential for increased participation. METHODS: Within the national screening programme, we randomised 1087 women overdue for screening to receive invitations with scheduled appointments (intervention) or the standard open reminders (control). Letters were sent 2–4 weeks before the scheduled appointments at three centres: a midwife clinic, a public healthcare centre and a general practitioner centre. The primary outcome was participation at 6 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were participation at 1 and 3 months. Risk ratios (RRs) overall, and stratified by screening centre, age group and previous participation, were calculated using log-binomial regression. RESULTS: At 6 months, 20% of the 510 women in the control group and 37% of the 526 women in the intervention group had participated in screening, excluding 51 women in total from analysis due to participation just before invitation and therefore not yet visible in the central records. The RR for participation at 6 months was 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3). There was no significant heterogeneity between centres or age groups. Participation increased among women both with (RR 1.7; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.1) and without (RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.3 to 9.2) previous participation. The RRs for participation at 1 and 3 months were 4.0 (95% CI 2.6 to 6.2) and 2.7 (95% CI 2.1 to 3.5), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Scheduled appointments increased screening participation consistently across all target ages and screening centres among women overdue for screening. Participation increased also among women with no previous records of cervical screening.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5128903
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51289032016-12-02 Impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in Norway: a randomised intervention Lönnberg, Stefan Andreassen, Trude Engesæter, Birgit Lilleng, Rune Kleven, Cecilia Skare, Annelie Johansson, Karin Fredheim, Christina Stangeland Tropé, Ameli BMJ Open Health Services Research BACKGROUND: The main barrier to optimal effect in many established population-based screening programmes against cervical cancer is low participation. In Norway, a routine health service integrated population-based screening programme has been running since 1995, using open invitations and reminders. The aim of this randomised health service study was to pilot scheduled appointments and assess their potential for increased participation. METHODS: Within the national screening programme, we randomised 1087 women overdue for screening to receive invitations with scheduled appointments (intervention) or the standard open reminders (control). Letters were sent 2–4 weeks before the scheduled appointments at three centres: a midwife clinic, a public healthcare centre and a general practitioner centre. The primary outcome was participation at 6 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were participation at 1 and 3 months. Risk ratios (RRs) overall, and stratified by screening centre, age group and previous participation, were calculated using log-binomial regression. RESULTS: At 6 months, 20% of the 510 women in the control group and 37% of the 526 women in the intervention group had participated in screening, excluding 51 women in total from analysis due to participation just before invitation and therefore not yet visible in the central records. The RR for participation at 6 months was 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3). There was no significant heterogeneity between centres or age groups. Participation increased among women both with (RR 1.7; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.1) and without (RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.3 to 9.2) previous participation. The RRs for participation at 1 and 3 months were 4.0 (95% CI 2.6 to 6.2) and 2.7 (95% CI 2.1 to 3.5), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Scheduled appointments increased screening participation consistently across all target ages and screening centres among women overdue for screening. Participation increased also among women with no previous records of cervical screening. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-11-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5128903/ /pubmed/28186949 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013728 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Health Services Research
Lönnberg, Stefan
Andreassen, Trude
Engesæter, Birgit
Lilleng, Rune
Kleven, Cecilia
Skare, Annelie
Johansson, Karin
Fredheim, Christina Stangeland
Tropé, Ameli
Impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in Norway: a randomised intervention
title Impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in Norway: a randomised intervention
title_full Impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in Norway: a randomised intervention
title_fullStr Impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in Norway: a randomised intervention
title_full_unstemmed Impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in Norway: a randomised intervention
title_short Impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in Norway: a randomised intervention
title_sort impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in norway: a randomised intervention
topic Health Services Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5128903/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28186949
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013728
work_keys_str_mv AT lonnbergstefan impactofscheduledappointmentsoncervicalscreeningparticipationinnorwayarandomisedintervention
AT andreassentrude impactofscheduledappointmentsoncervicalscreeningparticipationinnorwayarandomisedintervention
AT engesæterbirgit impactofscheduledappointmentsoncervicalscreeningparticipationinnorwayarandomisedintervention
AT lillengrune impactofscheduledappointmentsoncervicalscreeningparticipationinnorwayarandomisedintervention
AT klevencecilia impactofscheduledappointmentsoncervicalscreeningparticipationinnorwayarandomisedintervention
AT skareannelie impactofscheduledappointmentsoncervicalscreeningparticipationinnorwayarandomisedintervention
AT johanssonkarin impactofscheduledappointmentsoncervicalscreeningparticipationinnorwayarandomisedintervention
AT fredheimchristinastangeland impactofscheduledappointmentsoncervicalscreeningparticipationinnorwayarandomisedintervention
AT tropeameli impactofscheduledappointmentsoncervicalscreeningparticipationinnorwayarandomisedintervention