Avoiding inappropriate invitations to cancer screening programmes: the role of primary care
- PMID: 21536811
- DOI: 10.1258/jms.2011.009122
Avoiding inappropriate invitations to cancer screening programmes: the role of primary care
Abstract
Objectives: To examine current procedures for cancer screening invitation list (SIL) checking in primary care, and to make recommendations for the future use of these procedures.
Setting: Cancer screening departments/units and associated general practices across England.
Methods: 1) An analysis of the outputs of screening programme SIL checking, and accompanying practice questionnaire, for cancers of the cervix (9 screening centres, 36 general practices), breast (6 centres, 76 practices) and bowel (pilot hub, 7 practices)--supplemented by an audit of calls to screening centres to identify inappropriate invitations; 2) a national postal questionnaire survey sent to all 80 breast screening departments across England and 320 associated general practices; 3) telephone interviews with 13 NHS screening staff to obtain detailed perspectives about SIL checking procedures.
Results: SIL checking in primary care is undertaken by a variety of clinical and non-clinical staff. It plays a useful role in cervical screening with tangible evidence of refinements to the SIL and support from both primary care and screening centre staff. Conversely, its role in breast and bowel screening is not supported by the results of this study. Overall, there is no significant evidence of adverse effects from inappropriate invitations.
Conclusions: SIL checking in primary care for cervical cancer should continue, but its use in breast and bowel cancer screening is not supported by our results. New ways of undertaking the SIL checking process to make it more accurate and less burdensome should be examined.
Similar articles
-
Impact of UK colorectal cancer screening pilot on primary care.Br J Gen Pract. 2005 Jan;55(510):20-5. Br J Gen Pract. 2005. PMID: 15667761 Free PMC article.
-
[Approach to population-based screening in the Czech Republic, methodology and first results of the personalised invitation of citizens to cancer screening programmes].Klin Onkol. 2014;27 Suppl 2:59-68. Klin Onkol. 2014. PMID: 25494890 Czech.
-
[Performance indicators in screening programmes].Klin Onkol. 2014;27 Suppl 2:106-12. Klin Onkol. 2014. PMID: 25494895 Review. Czech.
-
Primary care practice and facility quality orientation: influence on breast and cervical cancer screening rates.Am J Manag Care. 2004 Apr;10(4):265-72. Am J Manag Care. 2004. PMID: 15124503
-
Cancer screening in the United States, 2013: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines, current issues in cancer screening, and new guidance on cervical cancer screening and lung cancer screening.CA Cancer J Clin. 2013 Mar-Apr;63(2):88-105. doi: 10.3322/caac.21174. Epub 2013 Feb 1. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013. PMID: 23378235 Review.
Cited by
-
What affects response rates in primary healthcare-based programmes? An analysis of individual and unit-related factors associated with increased odds of non-response based on HCV screening in the general population in Poland.BMJ Open. 2016 Dec 7;6(12):e013359. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013359. BMJ Open. 2016. PMID: 27927665 Free PMC article.
-
Stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors influencing the commissioning, delivery, and uptake of general health checks: a qualitative evidence synthesis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Mar 20;3(3):CD014796. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014796.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025. PMID: 40110911
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources