在机会性与非机会性宫颈筛查中坚持建议的随访:一项基于登记的丹麦队列研究。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Scandinavian Journal of Public Health Pub Date : 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1177/14034948241289273
Susanne F Jørgensen, Mathilde L Nielsen, Sisse H Njor
{"title":"在机会性与非机会性宫颈筛查中坚持建议的随访:一项基于登记的丹麦队列研究。","authors":"Susanne F Jørgensen, Mathilde L Nielsen, Sisse H Njor","doi":"10.1177/14034948241289273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Organised cervical screening programmes often allow for opportunistic screening. Previous studies have shown that adherence to follow-up protocols after cervical screening is poor. This study aims to investigate if non-adherence to recommended screening intervals - that is, opportunistic screening, is associated with adherence to follow-up after non-negative cervical screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using national registries we included 42,399 Danish women with a non-negative screening result from 2015 to 2017. Non-adherence was divided into insufficient and excessive follow-up. We calculated relative risks (RRs) of adherence to follow-up among different groups of opportunistically screened women, representing both too frequent and delayed screening participation, compared with non-opportunistically screened women.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with non-opportunistically screened women, opportunistically screened women who were delayed 1-3 years on their screening schedule had a higher risk of no follow-up (RR 1.99) and insufficient follow-up (RR 1.10). Women who were delayed 3-7 years on their screening also had a higher risk of no follow-up (RR 1.92). Women who attended screening up to 6 months too early had a higher risk of insufficient follow-up (RR 1.08) as well as excessive follow-up (RR 1.39). Finally, women screened more than 6 months too early had a higher risk of all deviations, but most pronounced was the risk of excessive follow-up (RR 1.67).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong><b>We found a higher risk of insufficient follow-up among women delayed in their screening schedule, and a higher risk of excessive follow-up among those with frequent screening. Screening participation behaviour seems to transfer to follow-up adherence. This underscores the important role of general practitioners in acting as gatekeepers in cervical screening follow-up</b>.</p>","PeriodicalId":49568,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Public Health","volume":" ","pages":"14034948241289273"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adherence to recommended follow-up in opportunistic versus non-opportunistic cervical screening: a registry-based cohort study from Denmark.\",\"authors\":\"Susanne F Jørgensen, Mathilde L Nielsen, Sisse H Njor\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14034948241289273\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Organised cervical screening programmes often allow for opportunistic screening. Previous studies have shown that adherence to follow-up protocols after cervical screening is poor. This study aims to investigate if non-adherence to recommended screening intervals - that is, opportunistic screening, is associated with adherence to follow-up after non-negative cervical screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using national registries we included 42,399 Danish women with a non-negative screening result from 2015 to 2017. Non-adherence was divided into insufficient and excessive follow-up. We calculated relative risks (RRs) of adherence to follow-up among different groups of opportunistically screened women, representing both too frequent and delayed screening participation, compared with non-opportunistically screened women.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with non-opportunistically screened women, opportunistically screened women who were delayed 1-3 years on their screening schedule had a higher risk of no follow-up (RR 1.99) and insufficient follow-up (RR 1.10). Women who were delayed 3-7 years on their screening also had a higher risk of no follow-up (RR 1.92). Women who attended screening up to 6 months too early had a higher risk of insufficient follow-up (RR 1.08) as well as excessive follow-up (RR 1.39). Finally, women screened more than 6 months too early had a higher risk of all deviations, but most pronounced was the risk of excessive follow-up (RR 1.67).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong><b>We found a higher risk of insufficient follow-up among women delayed in their screening schedule, and a higher risk of excessive follow-up among those with frequent screening. Screening participation behaviour seems to transfer to follow-up adherence. This underscores the important role of general practitioners in acting as gatekeepers in cervical screening follow-up</b>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Public Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"14034948241289273\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14034948241289273\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14034948241289273","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:有组织的宫颈筛查计划通常允许进行机会性筛查。以往的研究表明,宫颈筛查后坚持随访方案的情况很差。本研究旨在调查不遵守建议的筛查时间间隔(即机会性筛查)是否与非阴性宫颈筛查后坚持随访有关:通过国家登记,我们纳入了2015年至2017年期间筛查结果为非阴性的42399名丹麦妇女。不坚持随访分为随访不足和随访过度。我们计算了与非机会性筛查女性相比,不同机会性筛查女性群体(代表筛查参与过于频繁和延迟)坚持随访的相对风险系数(RR):与未参加机会性筛查的妇女相比,推迟参加筛查 1-3 年的机会性筛查妇女未参加随访(RR 1.99)和随访不足(RR 1.10)的风险较高。推迟 3-7 年接受筛查的妇女没有随访的风险也较高(RR 1.92)。过早参加筛查达 6 个月的妇女,随访不足(RR 1.08)和随访过度(RR 1.39)的风险较高。最后,过早接受筛查超过 6 个月的妇女出现所有偏差的风险都较高,但最明显的是过度随访的风险(RR 1.67):我们发现,筛查时间推迟的妇女随访不足的风险较高,而筛查频繁的妇女随访过度的风险较高。参与筛查的行为似乎会影响随访的坚持程度。这强调了全科医生在宫颈筛查随访中作为把关人的重要作用。
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
Adherence to recommended follow-up in opportunistic versus non-opportunistic cervical screening: a registry-based cohort study from Denmark.

Aim: Organised cervical screening programmes often allow for opportunistic screening. Previous studies have shown that adherence to follow-up protocols after cervical screening is poor. This study aims to investigate if non-adherence to recommended screening intervals - that is, opportunistic screening, is associated with adherence to follow-up after non-negative cervical screening.

Methods: Using national registries we included 42,399 Danish women with a non-negative screening result from 2015 to 2017. Non-adherence was divided into insufficient and excessive follow-up. We calculated relative risks (RRs) of adherence to follow-up among different groups of opportunistically screened women, representing both too frequent and delayed screening participation, compared with non-opportunistically screened women.

Results: Compared with non-opportunistically screened women, opportunistically screened women who were delayed 1-3 years on their screening schedule had a higher risk of no follow-up (RR 1.99) and insufficient follow-up (RR 1.10). Women who were delayed 3-7 years on their screening also had a higher risk of no follow-up (RR 1.92). Women who attended screening up to 6 months too early had a higher risk of insufficient follow-up (RR 1.08) as well as excessive follow-up (RR 1.39). Finally, women screened more than 6 months too early had a higher risk of all deviations, but most pronounced was the risk of excessive follow-up (RR 1.67).

Conclusions: We found a higher risk of insufficient follow-up among women delayed in their screening schedule, and a higher risk of excessive follow-up among those with frequent screening. Screening participation behaviour seems to transfer to follow-up adherence. This underscores the important role of general practitioners in acting as gatekeepers in cervical screening follow-up.

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
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
135
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Public Health is an international peer-reviewed journal which has a vision to: publish public health research of good quality; contribute to the conceptual and methodological development of public health; contribute to global health issues; contribute to news and overviews of public health developments and health policy developments in the Nordic countries; reflect the multidisciplinarity of public health.
期刊最新文献
A taste of ambrosia: Do Olympic medalists live longer than Olympic losers? The diagnosis of cerebral palsy in two Danish national registries: a validation study. Meaningfulness and mortality: exploring the sense of coherence in Eastern Finnish men. What is wellness? Investigating the importance of different domains of wellness among laypeople and experts: A survey study. Validation of the short version of Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire for adolescents in Norway.
×
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