参与PaCUDAHL随机临床试验的医生患者的霍桑效应并未改变其参与宫颈癌筛查的情况。

IF 1.6 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Gabrielle Lisembard, Michaël Rochoy, François Quersin, Valérie Deken, Alain Duhamel, Axel Descamps, Christophe Berkhout, Fanny Serman
{"title":"参与PaCUDAHL随机临床试验的医生患者的霍桑效应并未改变其参与宫颈癌筛查的情况。","authors":"Gabrielle Lisembard, Michaël Rochoy, François Quersin, Valérie Deken, Alain Duhamel, Axel Descamps, Christophe Berkhout, Fanny Serman","doi":"10.1186/s13104-025-07186-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The PaCUDAHL randomized clinical trial evaluated an HPV self-sampling device provided by the family doctor to female patients not participating in the usual opportunistic cervical screening program from 2016 to 2019. Reliable data on the Hawthorne (observer) effect (HE) in clinical trials were lacking. This nested study aimed to verify whether there was a significant difference between participating and non-participating general practitioners (GPs) in the trial, and to measure whether there was an HE in the female patients of participating GPs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We carried out an analytical retrospective cohort study involving 332 GPs and their 70,983 female patients, aged 25-65, registered with the Health Insurance Fund of Flanders, using claims database for the three-year periods 2012-2015 and 2016-2019. Statistical analyses were performed using a linear generalized hierarchical mixed model with geographic level as a random effect. The patients of the 24 participating GPs did not have a cervical cancer screening rate different from that of the non-participating GPs, either before recruitment (p = 0.24) or during the PaCUDAHL trial period (p = 0.15). There were significant increases in cervical cancer screening rates over four years regardless of the group considered (p < 0.0001). In conclusion there was no observer effect but a significant cohort effect.</p>","PeriodicalId":9234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Research Notes","volume":"18 1","pages":"123"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11934682/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The participation in cervical cancer screening is not altered by the Hawthorne effect among patients of doctors participating in the randomized clinical trial PaCUDAHL.\",\"authors\":\"Gabrielle Lisembard, Michaël Rochoy, François Quersin, Valérie Deken, Alain Duhamel, Axel Descamps, Christophe Berkhout, Fanny Serman\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13104-025-07186-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The PaCUDAHL randomized clinical trial evaluated an HPV self-sampling device provided by the family doctor to female patients not participating in the usual opportunistic cervical screening program from 2016 to 2019. Reliable data on the Hawthorne (observer) effect (HE) in clinical trials were lacking. This nested study aimed to verify whether there was a significant difference between participating and non-participating general practitioners (GPs) in the trial, and to measure whether there was an HE in the female patients of participating GPs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We carried out an analytical retrospective cohort study involving 332 GPs and their 70,983 female patients, aged 25-65, registered with the Health Insurance Fund of Flanders, using claims database for the three-year periods 2012-2015 and 2016-2019. Statistical analyses were performed using a linear generalized hierarchical mixed model with geographic level as a random effect. The patients of the 24 participating GPs did not have a cervical cancer screening rate different from that of the non-participating GPs, either before recruitment (p = 0.24) or during the PaCUDAHL trial period (p = 0.15). There were significant increases in cervical cancer screening rates over four years regardless of the group considered (p < 0.0001). In conclusion there was no observer effect but a significant cohort effect.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Research Notes\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"123\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11934682/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Research Notes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-025-07186-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Research Notes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-025-07186-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:PaCUDAHL随机临床试验评估2016 - 2019年家庭医生为未参加常规机会性子宫颈筛查计划的女性患者提供的HPV自采样装置。缺乏临床试验中霍桑(观察者)效应(HE)的可靠数据。本嵌套研究旨在验证参与试验的全科医生(gp)与未参与试验的全科医生(gp)之间是否存在显著差异,并测量参与试验的全科医生的女性患者中是否存在HE。结果:我们对在法兰德斯健康保险基金登记的332名全科医生及其70,983名年龄在25-65岁的女性患者进行了一项分析回顾性队列研究,使用了2012-2015年和2016-2019年三年期的索赔数据库。统计分析使用线性广义层次混合模型,地理水平作为随机效应。在招募前(p = 0.24)和PaCUDAHL试验期间(p = 0.15), 24名参与的全科医生患者的宫颈癌筛查率与未参与的全科医生没有差异。在过去的四年中,无论考虑的是哪一组,宫颈癌筛查率都有显著增加(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The participation in cervical cancer screening is not altered by the Hawthorne effect among patients of doctors participating in the randomized clinical trial PaCUDAHL.

Objective: The PaCUDAHL randomized clinical trial evaluated an HPV self-sampling device provided by the family doctor to female patients not participating in the usual opportunistic cervical screening program from 2016 to 2019. Reliable data on the Hawthorne (observer) effect (HE) in clinical trials were lacking. This nested study aimed to verify whether there was a significant difference between participating and non-participating general practitioners (GPs) in the trial, and to measure whether there was an HE in the female patients of participating GPs.

Results: We carried out an analytical retrospective cohort study involving 332 GPs and their 70,983 female patients, aged 25-65, registered with the Health Insurance Fund of Flanders, using claims database for the three-year periods 2012-2015 and 2016-2019. Statistical analyses were performed using a linear generalized hierarchical mixed model with geographic level as a random effect. The patients of the 24 participating GPs did not have a cervical cancer screening rate different from that of the non-participating GPs, either before recruitment (p = 0.24) or during the PaCUDAHL trial period (p = 0.15). There were significant increases in cervical cancer screening rates over four years regardless of the group considered (p < 0.0001). In conclusion there was no observer effect but a significant cohort effect.

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
BMC Research Notes
BMC Research Notes Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (all)
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
363
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Research Notes publishes scientifically valid research outputs that cannot be considered as full research or methodology articles. We support the research community across all scientific and clinical disciplines by providing an open access forum for sharing data and useful information; this includes, but is not limited to, updates to previous work, additions to established methods, short publications, null results, research proposals and data management plans.
×
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