Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Nov 14;6(11):e013728.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013728.

Impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in Norway: a randomised intervention

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in Norway: a randomised intervention

Stefan Lönnberg et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Background: The main barrier to optimal effect in many established population-based screening programmes against cervical cancer is low participation. In Norway, a routine health service integrated population-based screening programme has been running since 1995, using open invitations and reminders. The aim of this randomised health service study was to pilot scheduled appointments and assess their potential for increased participation.

Methods: Within the national screening programme, we randomised 1087 women overdue for screening to receive invitations with scheduled appointments (intervention) or the standard open reminders (control). Letters were sent 2-4 weeks before the scheduled appointments at three centres: a midwife clinic, a public healthcare centre and a general practitioner centre. The primary outcome was participation at 6 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were participation at 1 and 3 months. Risk ratios (RRs) overall, and stratified by screening centre, age group and previous participation, were calculated using log-binomial regression.

Results: At 6 months, 20% of the 510 women in the control group and 37% of the 526 women in the intervention group had participated in screening, excluding 51 women in total from analysis due to participation just before invitation and therefore not yet visible in the central records. The RR for participation at 6 months was 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3). There was no significant heterogeneity between centres or age groups. Participation increased among women both with (RR 1.7; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.1) and without (RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.3 to 9.2) previous participation. The RRs for participation at 1 and 3 months were 4.0 (95% CI 2.6 to 6.2) and 2.7 (95% CI 2.1 to 3.5), respectively.

Conclusions: Scheduled appointments increased screening participation consistently across all target ages and screening centres among women overdue for screening. Participation increased also among women with no previous records of cervical screening.

Keywords: PREVENTIVE MEDICINE.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow chart from randomisation to analysed population by study centre and intervention/control arm. *Owing to a lag in transfer for registration of screening tests in the Cancer Registry, 51 of the women randomised had participated in the past 3 months before allocation and mailing of letters. These women were not eligible for further primary screening and were excluded from the analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The cumulative probability of participation in days after mailing of either an invitation with a scheduled screening appointment (blue) or standard open reminder letter (red) with pointwise 95% CIs indicated.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Screening participation after the intervention (Interv.) of an added scheduled appointment to screen compared with controls (Control) receiving a standard open reminder. Results are stratified by screening centre (A) and age group (B). Participation is divided into screened as scheduled (blue) and screened by own separate appointment (red).

References

    1. Andrae B, Kemetli L, Sparén P et al. . Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:622–9. 10.1093/jnci/djn099 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lönnberg S, Anttila A, Luostarinen T et al. . Age-specific effectiveness of the Finnish cervical cancer screening programme. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012;21:1354–61. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0162 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lönnberg S, Nieminen P, Luostarinen T et al. . Mortality audit of the Finnish cervical cancer screening program. Int J Cancer 2013;132:2134–40. 10.1002/ijc.27844 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sasieni P, Castañon A, Cuzick J. Effectiveness of cervical screening with age: population based case-control study of prospectively recorded data. BMJ 2009;339:b2968 10.1136/bmj.b2968 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Skare GB, Lönnberg S. Masseundersøkelsen mot livmorhalskreft. Årsrapport 2013–2014. [Cervical screening programme annual report 2013–2014] Oslo: Cancer Registry of Norway, 2015.

Publication types