有组织的宫颈癌筛查:评估发送邀请函效果的随机对照试验。

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Preventive medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-15 DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.108150
Delphine Teigné, Anne-Sophie Banaszuk, Charlotte Grimault, Aline Lebon, France Nanin, Aurélie Gaultier, Cédric Rat
{"title":"有组织的宫颈癌筛查:评估发送邀请函效果的随机对照试验。","authors":"Delphine Teigné, Anne-Sophie Banaszuk, Charlotte Grimault, Aline Lebon, France Nanin, Aurélie Gaultier, Cédric Rat","doi":"10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.108150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the effect of implementing two modalities of organized Cervical Cancer Screening (CCS) program on screening uptake after a six-month delay.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 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]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The implementation of an organized screening based on an invitation letter resulted in a modest increase in participation among non-adherent women six months later.</p>","PeriodicalId":20339,"journal":{"name":"Preventive medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Organized cervical cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of sending invitation letters.\",\"authors\":\"Delphine Teigné, Anne-Sophie Banaszuk, Charlotte Grimault, Aline Lebon, France Nanin, Aurélie Gaultier, Cédric Rat\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.108150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the effect of implementing two modalities of organized Cervical Cancer Screening (CCS) program on screening uptake after a six-month delay.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 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]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The implementation of an organized screening based on an invitation letter resulted in a modest increase in participation among non-adherent women six months later.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Preventive medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Preventive medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.108150\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Preventive medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.108150","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估宫颈癌筛查(CCS)计划的两种组织模式在延迟六个月后对筛查率的影响:2021年1月8日至7月2日期间,法国开展了一项三臂群组随机对照试验,共有148 510名40至65岁的女性和1070名全科医生参与。在优化筛查组中,向未坚持筛查的妇女张贴了邀请函,并向全科医生发送了一份未坚持筛查的患者名单。在有组织筛查组中,向未坚持筛查的妇女张贴了邀请函。常规护理组未发出邀请函。终点是在 6 个月后,a)所有符合条件的妇女接受宫颈癌筛查的情况(主要终点);b)最初未接受筛查的妇女接受筛查的情况(事后分析)。统计分析采用逻辑混合模型,比较组间坚持筛查妇女的百分比。分层比较连续检验了三个组之间的差异(α 5 % 风险):在所有符合条件的 148510 名妇女中,优化筛查组的筛查率为 63.6%(31731/49910),而常规护理组为 61.8%(30210/48847)(OR [IC95 %] = 1.05[0.93; 1.18])。在 64,370 名最初未坚持筛查的妇女中,优化筛查组的筛查率为 17.9%(3955/22134),而常规护理组为 11.6%(5321/20995)(OR [IC95 %] = 1.70[1.56;1.86])。优化筛查组和有组织筛查组之间没有明显差异(17.2% vs 17.9%;OR [IC95 %] = 1.02[0.94; 1.11]):结论:以邀请函为基础的有组织筛查在 6 个月后使未坚持筛查的妇女的参与率略有提高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Organized cervical cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of sending invitation letters.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of implementing two modalities of organized Cervical Cancer Screening (CCS) program on screening uptake after a six-month delay.

Methods: A 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).

Results: Among 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]).

Conclusions: The implementation of an organized screening based on an invitation letter resulted in a modest increase in participation among non-adherent women six months later.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Preventive medicine
Preventive medicine 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
3.90%
发文量
0
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: Founded in 1972 by Ernst Wynder, Preventive Medicine is an international scholarly journal that provides prompt publication of original articles on the science and practice of disease prevention, health promotion, and public health policymaking. Preventive Medicine aims to reward innovation. It will favor insightful observational studies, thoughtful explorations of health data, unsuspected new angles for existing hypotheses, robust randomized controlled trials, and impartial systematic reviews. Preventive Medicine''s ultimate goal is to publish research that will have an impact on the work of practitioners of disease prevention and health promotion, as well as of related disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Behavior change, health, and health disparities 2024: Smoking and other tobacco use among women and girls. Association between self-reported child maltreatment and risk of hospital-treated infectious diseases in middle-aged and older adults: A UK Biobank cohort study. Fish oil supplementation, genetic susceptibility and risk of new-onset hypertension. Assessing the association between cigarette smoking and blood C-reactive protein levels using restructured cohort data Organized cervical cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of sending invitation letters.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1