{"title":"在英国家庭医学设置无应答者中,对家庭医生提醒宫颈筛查的有效性进行了为期三年的审计","authors":"Faizan Ahmad Awan, Abiya Ahmed","doi":"10.5742/mewfm.2023.95256021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Cervical cancer screening is offered to all women in the United Kingdom (UK) between the ages of 24.5 and 64 years of age. The majority of screening is performed in primary care settings and the coverage rate remains stubbornly below 80%, despite an automated national invitation system. Objective: To audit the effectiveness of physician reminders during patient-booked telephone or face-to-face family medicine appointments upon non-responders to automated invitations. Methods: One physician in a primary healthcare centre opportunistically administered a three-step verbal invitation to all individuals identified as non-responders during their appointments with him. Patients seen face-to-face were also given a fourth invitation, a written slip to give to the receptionist to help them book an appointment. A code was entered into the patient’s notes to indicate that this patient had received the invitation. The invitation was continued for three years. The rate of screening uptake in the invitation arm was then compared to the rest of the non-responder population who received other non-structured reminders. Results: 122 patients in the invitation arm and 602 in the control arm met the inclusion criteria. Cervical screening uptake was 11.1% greater in the invitation arm than the control arm (p < 0.0001; RR 1.188: CI 1.04 to 1.36). Patients receiving the fourth invitation in face-to-face appointments booked screening appointments 60 days earlier (mean = 110.8 days, n = 66) than those who received the verbal invitation only (mean = 170.4 days, n = 19, p = 0.08). Conclusion: There is evidence to support the use of both a verbal invitation followed by a written invitation by physicians in a family medicine setting in the UK for patients who are non-responders to cervical screening to increase uptake. The cost per extra cervical screening accepted in this non-responder population is £14.35. Both of these factors support the use of physician invitations to increase screening rates. Keywords cervical cancer screening, primary health care, non-responder, increasing uptake, invitations","PeriodicalId":23895,"journal":{"name":"World Family Medicine Journal /Middle East Journal of Family Medicine","volume":"104 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A three-year audit of the effectiveness of family physician reminders on cervical screening uptake amongst non-responders in a UK family medicine setting\",\"authors\":\"Faizan Ahmad Awan, Abiya Ahmed\",\"doi\":\"10.5742/mewfm.2023.95256021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Cervical cancer screening is offered to all women in the United Kingdom (UK) between the ages of 24.5 and 64 years of age. The majority of screening is performed in primary care settings and the coverage rate remains stubbornly below 80%, despite an automated national invitation system. Objective: To audit the effectiveness of physician reminders during patient-booked telephone or face-to-face family medicine appointments upon non-responders to automated invitations. Methods: One physician in a primary healthcare centre opportunistically administered a three-step verbal invitation to all individuals identified as non-responders during their appointments with him. Patients seen face-to-face were also given a fourth invitation, a written slip to give to the receptionist to help them book an appointment. A code was entered into the patient’s notes to indicate that this patient had received the invitation. The invitation was continued for three years. The rate of screening uptake in the invitation arm was then compared to the rest of the non-responder population who received other non-structured reminders. Results: 122 patients in the invitation arm and 602 in the control arm met the inclusion criteria. Cervical screening uptake was 11.1% greater in the invitation arm than the control arm (p < 0.0001; RR 1.188: CI 1.04 to 1.36). Patients receiving the fourth invitation in face-to-face appointments booked screening appointments 60 days earlier (mean = 110.8 days, n = 66) than those who received the verbal invitation only (mean = 170.4 days, n = 19, p = 0.08). Conclusion: There is evidence to support the use of both a verbal invitation followed by a written invitation by physicians in a family medicine setting in the UK for patients who are non-responders to cervical screening to increase uptake. The cost per extra cervical screening accepted in this non-responder population is £14.35. Both of these factors support the use of physician invitations to increase screening rates. Keywords cervical cancer screening, primary health care, non-responder, increasing uptake, invitations\",\"PeriodicalId\":23895,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Family Medicine Journal /Middle East Journal of Family Medicine\",\"volume\":\"104 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Family Medicine Journal /Middle East Journal of Family Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5742/mewfm.2023.95256021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Family Medicine Journal /Middle East Journal of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5742/mewfm.2023.95256021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:在英国,所有年龄在24.5岁到64岁之间的女性都可以接受宫颈癌筛查。大多数筛查是在初级保健机构进行的,尽管采用了自动化的国家邀请系统,但覆盖率仍然顽固地低于80%。目的:审核医生在电话预约或面对面家庭医学预约中对自动邀请无应答者进行提醒的有效性。方法:一位初级卫生保健中心的医生机会性地对所有在与他预约期间被确定为无反应的个人进行了三步口头邀请。面对面就诊的患者还收到了第四份邀请,这是一张书面请柬,让他们交给接待员,帮助他们预约。在病人的笔记中输入了一个代码,表明这个病人已经收到了邀请。这一邀请持续了三年。然后,将邀请组的筛查接受率与其他收到非结构化提醒的非回应组进行比较。结果:邀请组122例,对照组602例符合纳入标准。邀请组接受子宫颈筛查的比例比对照组高11.1% (p < 0.0001;RR 1.188: CI 1.04 - 1.36)。在面对面预约中接受第四次邀请的患者比只接受口头邀请的患者提前60天预约筛查(平均= 110.8天,n = 66)(平均= 170.4天,n = 19, p = 0.08)。结论:有证据支持在英国的家庭医学环境中,医生对宫颈筛查无反应的患者使用口头邀请和书面邀请来增加吸收。在这一无应答人群中接受的每项额外子宫颈筛查费用为14.35英镑。这两个因素都支持使用医生邀请来提高筛查率。关键词宫颈癌筛查,初级卫生保健,无应答,增加吸收,邀请
A three-year audit of the effectiveness of family physician reminders on cervical screening uptake amongst non-responders in a UK family medicine setting
Background: Cervical cancer screening is offered to all women in the United Kingdom (UK) between the ages of 24.5 and 64 years of age. The majority of screening is performed in primary care settings and the coverage rate remains stubbornly below 80%, despite an automated national invitation system. Objective: To audit the effectiveness of physician reminders during patient-booked telephone or face-to-face family medicine appointments upon non-responders to automated invitations. Methods: One physician in a primary healthcare centre opportunistically administered a three-step verbal invitation to all individuals identified as non-responders during their appointments with him. Patients seen face-to-face were also given a fourth invitation, a written slip to give to the receptionist to help them book an appointment. A code was entered into the patient’s notes to indicate that this patient had received the invitation. The invitation was continued for three years. The rate of screening uptake in the invitation arm was then compared to the rest of the non-responder population who received other non-structured reminders. Results: 122 patients in the invitation arm and 602 in the control arm met the inclusion criteria. Cervical screening uptake was 11.1% greater in the invitation arm than the control arm (p < 0.0001; RR 1.188: CI 1.04 to 1.36). Patients receiving the fourth invitation in face-to-face appointments booked screening appointments 60 days earlier (mean = 110.8 days, n = 66) than those who received the verbal invitation only (mean = 170.4 days, n = 19, p = 0.08). Conclusion: There is evidence to support the use of both a verbal invitation followed by a written invitation by physicians in a family medicine setting in the UK for patients who are non-responders to cervical screening to increase uptake. The cost per extra cervical screening accepted in this non-responder population is £14.35. Both of these factors support the use of physician invitations to increase screening rates. Keywords cervical cancer screening, primary health care, non-responder, increasing uptake, invitations