Reducing default from colposcopy clinics.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Ambulatory Care Facilities↗
Biomedical subjects
Cerilan Rogers
Publications and source records attributed to Cerilan Rogers.
Cluster-randomised trial of risk communication to enhance informed uptake of cervical screening.
BACKGROUND: Women overestimate both population and individual risk of cervical cancer. This may contribute to the recognised excess screening frequency for low-risk women. AIM: To investigate whether an individualized risk communication package could affect stated preferences for screening interval and actual screening behaviour. DESIGN: Pragmatic, practice-based cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-nine practices (15 intervention, 14 control) in North Wales recruited 1890 women attending for cervical smears. METHOD: A risk communication package containing visual material was compared with normal practice. Practice nurses received training in its delivery. The short-term primary outcome was stated preference for screening interval; the long-term primary outcome was actual screening behaviour. RESULTS: In the short term, intervention arm women were significantly less likely to prefer a shorter than recommended interval (odds ratio [OR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.41 to 0.64; P < 0.0001). At the five-year follow-up, fewer women in the intervention arm had attended for screening sooner than their recommended recall. The magnitude of difference in excess screening interval preference and behaviour was similar, but behaviour had a wider confidence interval and a marginally non-significant P-value (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.36 to 1.03; P = 0.063). Better knowledge and more accurate risk perceptions were demonstrated, with an improvement in measures of anxiety. The extra cost per woman receiving the intervention was 6 Pounds. CONCLUSIONS: Women's perception of risk contributes to determining screening intervals in addition to practice factors. Simple risk information delivered in primary care affected women's stated preferences for tests. The impact on actual screening behaviour was more equivocal. Overall, the intervention showed a substantial benefit and any disbenefit can be ruled out. This approach to providing risk information could, at low cost, benefit other screening programmes and may relieve anxiety.
Adult↗
Reviewing interval cancers: time well spent?
OBJECTIVES: To categorize interval cancers, and thus identify false-negatives, following prevalent and incident screens in the Welsh breast screening programme. SETTING: Breast Test Wales (BTW) Llandudno, Cardiff and Swansea breast screening units. METHODS: Five hundred and sixty interval breast cancers identified following negative mammographic screening between 1989 and 1997 were reviewed by eight screening radiologists. The blind review was achieved by mixing the screening films of women who subsequently developed an interval cancer with screen negative films of women who did not develop cancer, in a ratio of 4 to 1. Another radiologist used patients' symptomatic films to record a reference against which the reviewers' reports of the screening films were compared. Interval cancers were categorized as 'true', 'occult', 'false-negative' or 'unclassified' interval cancers or interval cancers with minimal signs, based on the National Health Service breast screening programme (NHSBSP) guidelines. RESULTS: Of the classifiable interval films, 32% were false-negatives, 55% were true intervals and 12% occult. The proportion of false-negatives following incident screens was half that following prevalent screens (P = 0.004). Forty percent of the seed films were recalled by the panel. CONCLUSIONS: Low false-negative interval cancer rates following incident screens (18%) versus prevalent screens (36%) suggest that lower cancer detection rates at incident screens may have resulted from fewer cancers than expected being present, rather than from a failure to detect tumours. The panel method for categorizing interval cancers has significant flaws as the results vary markedly with different protocol and is no more accurate than other, quicker and more timely methods.
Breast Neoplasms↗