在 COVID-19 恢复期间,使用开放式邀请代替定时预约邀请是否降低了伦敦地区的乳腺筛查接受率?

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Medical Screening Pub Date : 2023-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-10-11 DOI:10.1177/09691413221127583
Sue M Hudson, Kathie Binysh, Stephen W Duffy
{"title":"在 COVID-19 恢复期间,使用开放式邀请代替定时预约邀请是否降低了伦敦地区的乳腺筛查接受率?","authors":"Sue M Hudson, Kathie Binysh, Stephen W Duffy","doi":"10.1177/09691413221127583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Covid-19 pandemic created a backlog of women awaiting an invitation for breast screening in the UK. To recover in a timely fashion, the National Health Service programme opted to issue open invitations (OI) to women rather than the standard pre-booked timed appointments (TA). Historically, OIs have been shown to result in lower uptake. The aim of this study was to make use of a natural experiment to compare uptake in groups sent an OI with those sent a TA during a period when both invitation methods were in use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Women invited for routine screening at one of the six London breast screening services from September 2020 to March 2021 were included and grouped according to the type of invitation they had received (TA or OI). The outcome was attendance within 6 months of opening the screening episode. Data were analysed by logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the period of the study, 78,192 (32.5%) women received a TA and 162,680 (67.5%) received an OI. In the TA group, 47,391 (60.6%) attended within six months of offered appointment and in the OI group 86,430 (53.1%) attended. This difference was significant (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The odds ratio (95% CI) for the attended outcome was 1.44 (1.33-1.55) adjusted for differences in deprivation and for invitation category (first invitation or subsequent invitation).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study supports the view that TA delivers a higher uptake than OI. It suggests that during this period over 12,000 women in London, who would have been expected to attend if given the standard TA, did not attend their appointment having received an OI.</p>","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":"30 2","pages":"87-91"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9554567/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Did the use of open invitations in place of timed appointment invitations reduce the uptake of breast screening in the London region during the COVID-19 recovery?\",\"authors\":\"Sue M Hudson, Kathie Binysh, Stephen W Duffy\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09691413221127583\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Covid-19 pandemic created a backlog of women awaiting an invitation for breast screening in the UK. To recover in a timely fashion, the National Health Service programme opted to issue open invitations (OI) to women rather than the standard pre-booked timed appointments (TA). Historically, OIs have been shown to result in lower uptake. The aim of this study was to make use of a natural experiment to compare uptake in groups sent an OI with those sent a TA during a period when both invitation methods were in use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Women invited for routine screening at one of the six London breast screening services from September 2020 to March 2021 were included and grouped according to the type of invitation they had received (TA or OI). The outcome was attendance within 6 months of opening the screening episode. Data were analysed by logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the period of the study, 78,192 (32.5%) women received a TA and 162,680 (67.5%) received an OI. In the TA group, 47,391 (60.6%) attended within six months of offered appointment and in the OI group 86,430 (53.1%) attended. This difference was significant (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The odds ratio (95% CI) for the attended outcome was 1.44 (1.33-1.55) adjusted for differences in deprivation and for invitation category (first invitation or subsequent invitation).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study supports the view that TA delivers a higher uptake than OI. It suggests that during this period over 12,000 women in London, who would have been expected to attend if given the standard TA, did not attend their appointment having received an OI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51089,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Screening\",\"volume\":\"30 2\",\"pages\":\"87-91\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9554567/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Screening\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413221127583\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/10/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Screening","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413221127583","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:Covid-19 大流行导致英国积压了大量等待乳腺筛查邀请函的妇女。为了及时恢复,国民健康服务计划选择向妇女发出公开邀请(OI),而不是标准的预先预约定时预约(TA)。从历史上看,公开邀请的接受率较低。本研究的目的是利用自然实验,比较在两种邀请方式同时使用期间,发送 OI 和发送 TA 的群体的接受率:纳入了 2020 年 9 月至 2021 年 3 月期间受邀在伦敦六家乳腺筛查服务机构之一接受常规筛查的妇女,并根据她们收到的邀请类型(TA 或 OI)进行分组。结果为筛查开始后 6 个月内的就诊情况。数据采用逻辑回归法进行分析:在研究期间,78 192 名妇女(32.5%)收到了 TA 的邀请,162 680 名妇女(67.5%)收到了 OI 的邀请。在接受辅助检查组中,有 47391 名妇女(60.6%)在预约后的六个月内接受了检查,而在接受其他检查组中,有 86430 名妇女(53.1%)在预约后的六个月内接受了检查。这一差异非常明显(P这项研究支持了 "TA "比 "OI "提供更多的就诊率这一观点。它表明,在此期间,伦敦有 12,000 多名妇女在接受了 OI 后没有赴约,而如果提供标准 TA,她们本应赴约。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Did the use of open invitations in place of timed appointment invitations reduce the uptake of breast screening in the London region during the COVID-19 recovery?

Objective: The Covid-19 pandemic created a backlog of women awaiting an invitation for breast screening in the UK. To recover in a timely fashion, the National Health Service programme opted to issue open invitations (OI) to women rather than the standard pre-booked timed appointments (TA). Historically, OIs have been shown to result in lower uptake. The aim of this study was to make use of a natural experiment to compare uptake in groups sent an OI with those sent a TA during a period when both invitation methods were in use.

Methods: Women invited for routine screening at one of the six London breast screening services from September 2020 to March 2021 were included and grouped according to the type of invitation they had received (TA or OI). The outcome was attendance within 6 months of opening the screening episode. Data were analysed by logistic regression.

Results: During the period of the study, 78,192 (32.5%) women received a TA and 162,680 (67.5%) received an OI. In the TA group, 47,391 (60.6%) attended within six months of offered appointment and in the OI group 86,430 (53.1%) attended. This difference was significant (p < 0.001). The odds ratio (95% CI) for the attended outcome was 1.44 (1.33-1.55) adjusted for differences in deprivation and for invitation category (first invitation or subsequent invitation).

Conclusions: This study supports the view that TA delivers a higher uptake than OI. It suggests that during this period over 12,000 women in London, who would have been expected to attend if given the standard TA, did not attend their appointment having received an OI.

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
Journal of Medical Screening
Journal of Medical Screening 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
40
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Screening, a fully peer reviewed journal, is concerned with all aspects of medical screening, particularly the publication of research that advances screening theory and practice. The journal aims to increase awareness of the principles of screening (quantitative and statistical aspects), screening techniques and procedures and methodologies from all specialties. An essential subscription for physicians, clinicians and academics with an interest in screening, epidemiology and public health.
期刊最新文献
Age-specific differences in tumour characteristics between screen-detected and non-screen-detected breast cancers in women aged 40-74 at diagnosis in Sweden from 2008 to 2017. Association between time to colonoscopy after positive fecal testing and colorectal cancer outcomes in Alberta, Canada. Cancer screening programs in Japan: Progress and challenges. Strong association between reduction of late-stage cancers and reduction of cancer-specific mortality in meta-regression of randomized screening trials across multiple cancer types. Factors associated with private or public breast cancer screening attendance in Queensland, Australia: A retrospective cross-sectional study.
×
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