2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10541/109696
Title:
How district health authorities organise cervical screening.
Authors:
Elkind, Andrea; Eardley, Anne; Thompson, Rebecca; Smith, Alwyn
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: To examine how district health authorities organised cervical screening with respect to Department of Health guidelines and to determine their assessment of the problems encountered. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire sent to all 190 district health authorities in England in 1989. PARTICIPANTS: 190 District health authorities in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Population coverage of screening, quality of smear testing, and follow up of abdominal test results in comparison with national guidelines for district cervical screening services, and problems encountered by districts. RESULTS: Replies were received from 178 (94%) of districts, in 143 of which the person named as responsible for cervical screening contributed. All districts implemented a computer managed scheme, 150 by the target date of 31 March 1988, but not all of these conformed with the guidelines. At the time of the survey only just over half called women in the target age group of 20-64 and only 70% expected to meet the target date of 13 March 1993 for completing the call. Considerable variation was evident among the schemes with regard to how they dealt with issues related to population coverage, quality of testing, and follow up of abnormal results. The problems most commonly identified by the districts (n = 174) were laboratory workload (107, 61%), computer software (104, 60%), availability of resources (78, 45%), non-attendance (77, 44%), rate of opportunistic screening (62, 36%), and investigation and treatment (60, 34%). CONCLUSIONS: Current practice in running cervical screening schemes needs to be examined to determine the extent to which it contributes to the goal of reducing mortality from cervical cancer.
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Social Oncology, Christie Hospital and Holt Radium Institute, Manchester.
Citation:
How district health authorities organise cervical screening. 1990, 301 (6757):915-8 BMJ
Journal:
BMJ
Issue Date:
20-Oct-1990
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10541/109696
DOI:
10.1136/bmj.301.6757.915
PubMed ID:
2261539
Type:
Article
Language:
en
ISSN:
0959-8138
Appears in Collections:
All Christie Publications

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorElkind, Andreaen
dc.contributor.authorEardley, Anneen
dc.contributor.authorThompson, Rebeccaen
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Alwynen
dc.date.accessioned2010-08-17T08:35:25Z-
dc.date.available2010-08-17T08:35:25Z-
dc.date.issued1990-10-20-
dc.identifier.citationHow district health authorities organise cervical screening. 1990, 301 (6757):915-8 BMJen
dc.identifier.issn0959-8138-
dc.identifier.pmid2261539-
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmj.301.6757.915-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/109696-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: To examine how district health authorities organised cervical screening with respect to Department of Health guidelines and to determine their assessment of the problems encountered. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire sent to all 190 district health authorities in England in 1989. PARTICIPANTS: 190 District health authorities in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Population coverage of screening, quality of smear testing, and follow up of abdominal test results in comparison with national guidelines for district cervical screening services, and problems encountered by districts. RESULTS: Replies were received from 178 (94%) of districts, in 143 of which the person named as responsible for cervical screening contributed. All districts implemented a computer managed scheme, 150 by the target date of 31 March 1988, but not all of these conformed with the guidelines. At the time of the survey only just over half called women in the target age group of 20-64 and only 70% expected to meet the target date of 13 March 1993 for completing the call. Considerable variation was evident among the schemes with regard to how they dealt with issues related to population coverage, quality of testing, and follow up of abnormal results. The problems most commonly identified by the districts (n = 174) were laboratory workload (107, 61%), computer software (104, 60%), availability of resources (78, 45%), non-attendance (77, 44%), rate of opportunistic screening (62, 36%), and investigation and treatment (60, 34%). CONCLUSIONS: Current practice in running cervical screening schemes needs to be examined to determine the extent to which it contributes to the goal of reducing mortality from cervical cancer.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectUterine Cervical Cancer-
dc.subject.meshAdult-
dc.subject.meshCommunication-
dc.subject.meshEngland-
dc.subject.meshFamily Practice-
dc.subject.meshFemale-
dc.subject.meshHumans-
dc.subject.meshManagement Information Systems-
dc.subject.meshMass Screening-
dc.subject.meshMiddle Aged-
dc.subject.meshNational Health Programs-
dc.subject.meshQuality of Health Care-
dc.subject.meshState Medicine-
dc.subject.meshUterine Cervical Neoplasms-
dc.subject.meshVaginal Smears-
dc.titleHow district health authorities organise cervical screening.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Epidemiology and Social Oncology, Christie Hospital and Holt Radium Institute, Manchester.en
dc.identifier.journalBMJen

Related articles on PubMed

All Items in Christie are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.