• Preventive medicine · Oct 2024

    Organized cervical cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of sending invitation letters.

    • Delphine Teigné, Anne-Sophie Banaszuk, Charlotte Grimault, Aline Lebon, France Nanin, Aurélie Gaultier, and Cédric Rat.
    • Department of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Nantes University, Nantes, France; Research Department, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France; Primary Care Federative Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Nantes, Nantes, France. Electronic address: delphine.teigne@chu-nantes.fr.
    • Prev Med. 2024 Oct 15; 189: 108150108150.

    ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of implementing two modalities of organized Cervical Cancer Screening (CCS) program on screening uptake after a six-month delay.MethodsA three-armed cluster randomized control trial was conducted in France between January 8 and July 2, 2021, involving148 510 women aged 40 to 65 and 1070 general practitioners. In the Optimized screening group, an invitation letter was posted to non-adherent women, and general practitioners were sent a list of their non-adherent patients. In the Organized screening group, an invitation letter was posted to non-adherent women. In the Usual care group, no invitation was sent. The endpoint was cervical cancer screening uptake after a six months period a) among all eligible women (primary endpoint); and b) among initially non-adherent women (post-hoc analysis). Statistical analysis was based on a logistic mixed model that compared between-group percentages of adherent women. A hierarchical comparison successively tested differences between the three arms (alpha 5 % risk).ResultsAmong all 148,510 eligible women, screening uptake was 63.6 % (31,731/49910) in the Optimized screening group vs 61.8 % (30,210/48847) in the Usual care group (OR [IC95 %] = 1.05[0.93; 1.18]). Among the 64,370 initially non-adherent women, screening uptake was 17.9 % (3955/22134) in the Optimized screening group vs 11.6 % (5321/20995) in the Usual care group (OR [IC95 %] = 1.70[1.56;1.86]). There was no significant difference between Optimized and Organized screening groups (17.2 % vs 17.9 %; OR [IC95 %] = 1.02[0.94; 1.11]).ConclusionsThe implementation of an organized screening based on an invitation letter resulted in a modest increase in participation among non-adherent women six months later.Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…