Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/10620
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorEverett, Thomas-
dc.contributor.authorBryant, Andrew-
dc.contributor.authorGriffin, Michelle F-
dc.contributor.authorMartin-Hirsch, Pierre P L-
dc.contributor.authorForbes, Carol A-
dc.contributor.authorJepson, Ruth-
dc.date.accessioned2018-05-05T02:51:06Z-
dc.date.available2018-05-05T02:51:06Z-
dc.date.issued2011-
dc.identifier.otherCD002834.pub2-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/10620-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND World-wide, cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women. Increasing the uptake of screening, alongside increasing informed choice is of great importance in controlling this disease through prevention and early detection. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at women, to increase the uptake, including informed uptake, of cervical cancer screening. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 1, 2009. MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases up to March 2009. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase uptake/informed uptake of cervical cancer screening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible the data were synthesised in a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS Thirty-eight trials met our inclusion criteria. These trials assessed the effectiveness of invitational and educational interventions, counselling, risk factor assessment and procedural interventions. Heterogeneity between trials limited statistical pooling of data. Overall, however, invitations appear to be effective methods of increasing uptake. In addition, there is limited evidence to support the use of educational materials. Secondary outcomes including cost data were incompletely documented so evidence was limited. Most trials were at moderate risk of bias. Informed uptake of cervical screening was not reported in any trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is evidence to support the use of invitation letters to increase the uptake of cervical screening. There is limited evidence to support educational interventions but it is unclear what format is most effective. The majority of the studies are from developed countries and so the relevance to developing countries is unclear.en_UK
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell for the Cochrane Collaboration-
dc.relationEverett T, Bryant A, Griffin MF, Martin-Hirsch PPL, Forbes CA & Jepson R (2011) Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening (Review), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (5), Art. No.: CD002834.pub2.-
dc.rightsThis review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 5. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review. This is the reference to the original version of this review: Forbes CA, Jepson RG, Martin-Hirsch PPL. Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD002834. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002834.-
dc.subject.lcshCervix uteri Cancer Diagnosis Scotland-
dc.subject.lcshMedical screening Scotland.-
dc.titleInterventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening (Review)en_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002834.pub2-
dc.identifier.pmid21563135-
dc.citation.jtitleCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews-
dc.citation.issn1469-493X-
dc.citation.issue5-
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublished-
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereed-
dc.type.statusPublisher version (final published refereed version)-
dc.author.emailruth.jepson@stir.ac.uk-
dc.contributor.affiliationCambridge University Hospitals NHS-
dc.contributor.affiliationNewcastle University-
dc.contributor.affiliationCambridge University Hospitals NHS-
dc.contributor.affiliationRoyal Preston Hospital-
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of York-
dc.contributor.affiliationHS Research - Stirling-
dc.identifier.isi000290496400038-
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Cochrane Reviews

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Everett et al_Cochrane_2011.pdf958.52 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.