细胞器筛查子宫颈癌的可接受性。

J Carruthers, J M Wilson, J Chamberlain, O A Husain, D G Patey, N D Richards, A Pennicott, P Rogers, R Catling, T W Meade, J Saunders, P J McEwan
{"title":"细胞器筛查子宫颈癌的可接受性。","authors":"J Carruthers,&nbsp;J M Wilson,&nbsp;J Chamberlain,&nbsp;O A Husain,&nbsp;D G Patey,&nbsp;N D Richards,&nbsp;A Pennicott,&nbsp;P Rogers,&nbsp;R Catling,&nbsp;T W Meade,&nbsp;J Saunders,&nbsp;P J McEwan","doi":"10.1136/jech.29.4.239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A randomized controlled trial was carried out in which the acceptability of screening for cervical carcinoma in situ by a postal 'do-it-yourself' method--the cytopipette--was compared with that of an invitation to attend a clinic or see a general practitioner for the conventional cervical scrape examination. In parallel with this, a sociological study of women who had been invited by both methods was undertaken in which information was obtained from responders and non-responders on attitudes to health care. The results show that, while the pipette was used by a greater proportion of women overall than the scrape examination, its acceptance by women most at risk of the disease is still not high. It is concluded that, taking into account the relative merits of the two methods as screening tests, as well as their acceptability and cost, the postal pipette may be useful in some circumstances, such as areas where clinical resources are limited, and as a second approach to women who have not taken up the offer of a scrape examination.</p>","PeriodicalId":75622,"journal":{"name":"British journal of preventive & social medicine","volume":"29 4","pages":"239-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1975-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/jech.29.4.239","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acceptability of the cytopipette in screening for cervical cancer.\",\"authors\":\"J Carruthers,&nbsp;J M Wilson,&nbsp;J Chamberlain,&nbsp;O A Husain,&nbsp;D G Patey,&nbsp;N D Richards,&nbsp;A Pennicott,&nbsp;P Rogers,&nbsp;R Catling,&nbsp;T W Meade,&nbsp;J Saunders,&nbsp;P J McEwan\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/jech.29.4.239\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A randomized controlled trial was carried out in which the acceptability of screening for cervical carcinoma in situ by a postal 'do-it-yourself' method--the cytopipette--was compared with that of an invitation to attend a clinic or see a general practitioner for the conventional cervical scrape examination. In parallel with this, a sociological study of women who had been invited by both methods was undertaken in which information was obtained from responders and non-responders on attitudes to health care. The results show that, while the pipette was used by a greater proportion of women overall than the scrape examination, its acceptance by women most at risk of the disease is still not high. It is concluded that, taking into account the relative merits of the two methods as screening tests, as well as their acceptability and cost, the postal pipette may be useful in some circumstances, such as areas where clinical resources are limited, and as a second approach to women who have not taken up the offer of a scrape examination.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75622,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of preventive & social medicine\",\"volume\":\"29 4\",\"pages\":\"239-48\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1975-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/jech.29.4.239\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of preventive & social medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.29.4.239\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of preventive & social medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.29.4.239","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

进行了一项随机对照试验,比较了通过邮寄“自己动手”的方法——细胞器原位筛查宫颈癌的可接受性与邀请去诊所或看全科医生进行常规宫颈刮擦检查的可接受性。与此同时,对接受这两种方法邀请的妇女进行了一项社会学研究,从作出反应的妇女和没有作出反应的妇女那里获得关于保健态度的信息。结果表明,虽然使用移液器的女性比例总体上高于刮痧检查,但对最易患该疾病的女性的接受程度仍然不高。结论是,考虑到这两种方法作为筛查试验的相对优点,以及它们的可接受性和成本,邮政移液器在某些情况下可能是有用的,例如在临床资源有限的地区,并作为未接受刮痧检查的妇女的第二种方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Acceptability of the cytopipette in screening for cervical cancer.

A randomized controlled trial was carried out in which the acceptability of screening for cervical carcinoma in situ by a postal 'do-it-yourself' method--the cytopipette--was compared with that of an invitation to attend a clinic or see a general practitioner for the conventional cervical scrape examination. In parallel with this, a sociological study of women who had been invited by both methods was undertaken in which information was obtained from responders and non-responders on attitudes to health care. The results show that, while the pipette was used by a greater proportion of women overall than the scrape examination, its acceptance by women most at risk of the disease is still not high. It is concluded that, taking into account the relative merits of the two methods as screening tests, as well as their acceptability and cost, the postal pipette may be useful in some circumstances, such as areas where clinical resources are limited, and as a second approach to women who have not taken up the offer of a scrape examination.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信