PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9474830

Why do we continue to take unnecessary smears?

C B Woodman·J Richardson·M Spence
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A questionnaire survey of all general practices and family planning doctors in Manchester Health Authority was undertaken to determine why many more smears are taken in primary care than are scheduled by the screening programme. An 82% response rate was obtained. The indications for additional smear tests most frequently cited by responders were postcoital (88%), postmenopausal (84%), or intermenstrual bleeding (55%); genital warts (87%); and multiple sexual partners (52%). Forty-six per cent think that a woman should have a repeat test within one year of her first ever test. We discuss why these are not valid indications for additional smear tests.

Explore related subjects

EnglandFamily Planning ServicesFamily PracticeFemaleHumansUnnecessary ProceduresVaginal SmearsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C B Woodman, J Richardson, M Spence. 1997. Why do we continue to take unnecessary smears?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9474830/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Health inequalities in Scotland and England: the contrasting journeys of ideas from research into policy.

Both the UK's Labour Government and Scotland's devolved Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition Executive have committed themselves to reducing health inequalities. Furthermore, both institutions have emphasised the importance of using evidence to inform policy responses. In light of such political commitments, a significant amount of work has been undertaken in the field of health inequalities in order to: (i) review the available research evidence; (ii) assess the extent to which policies have been based on this research evidence; and (iii) evaluate the success (or failure) of policies to tackle health inequalities. Yet so far only limited attention has been given to exploring how key actors involved in research-policy dialogues understand the processes involved. In an attempt to address this gap, this article draws on data from semi-structured interviews with 58 key actors in the field of health inequalities research and policymaking in the UK to argue that it is ideas, rather than research evidence, which have travelled from research into policy. The descriptions of the varying journeys of these ideas fit three types--successful, partial and fractured--each of which is outlined with reference to one example. The paper then employs existing theories about research-policy relations and the movement of ideas in an attempt to illuminate and better understand the contrasting journeys. In the concluding discussion, it is argued that the third approach, which focuses on the entrepreneurial processes involved in the marketing of ideas, is most helpful in understanding the research findings, but that this needs to be discussed in relation to the political context within which negotiations take place.

England↗