Abstract
The computerised age-sex register of the population attending a small health centre was used to generate invitations to women aged from 25 to 64 years to attend for a cervical smear. The campaign took place over about three months and was accompanied by appropriate publicity measures.
Replies were received from 80·7 per cent of those to whom invitations were sent. Of those who replied, 11·5 per cent refused the test and of those who accepted 7·6 per cent failed to attend. The cost of the campaign was about £2,280, or £2.71 for each of the 842 smears taken. Of the publicity measures used, posters appeared to be more effective than evening paper publicity or handbills.
Just over 70 per cent of the women in the target population had a cervical smear during the campaign or in the preceding three years. It is not possible from the available data to assess whether this coverage rate justifies the costs of the campaign.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Irvine D., Jeffreys M. B.M.A. Planning Unit survey of general practice 1969. Br Med J. 1971 Nov 27;4(5786):535–543. doi: 10.1136/bmj.4.5786.535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Macgregor J. E., Baird D. Detection of Cervical Carcinoma in the General Population. Br Med J. 1963 Jun 22;1(5346):1631–1636. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.5346.1631. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Newmark R. W. A cervical smear campaign in a general practice. J Coll Gen Pract. 1966 Jul;12(1):86–90. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Saunders J., Snaith A. H. Cervical cytology consent rate. Lancet. 1969 Jul 26;2(7613):207–207. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(69)91439-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Scaife B. Survey of cervical cytology in general practice. Br Med J. 1972 Jul 22;3(5820):200–202. doi: 10.1136/bmj.3.5820.200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- WAY S., DURAN F., PEBERDY M., STEFAN M. A. VAGINAL CYTOLOGY IN "WELL WOMEN". Lancet. 1963 Sep 21;2(7308):624–626. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(63)90410-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]