The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review.

Abstract

T he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources. The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA). This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care. It was identified as a priority by the Population Screening Panel and funded as project number 95/14/01. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein. In particular, policy options in the area of screening will be considered by the National Screening Committee. This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations. Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.

Do income effects mask social and behavioural factors when looking at universal health care provision?

“…This was demonstrated by the positive and signifi cant association of all lagged dependent variables. The experience of previous screenings on health check-ups has been found to be a key factor in the literature [26]. It seems that there is an important distinction between individuals who have never accessed health services and those with previous experiences.…”

“…Int J Public Health 53 (2008)[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Do income effects mask social and behavioural factors when © Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2008 looking at universal health care provision?…”

Health Beliefs and Illness Perceptions as Related to Mammography Uptake in Randomly Selected Women in Greece

“…Based on previous research, a set of socio-demographic and medical variables was included in the analysis, as predictors of mammography utilization (Borras, Guillen, Sanchez, Junca, & Vicente, 1999;Cabeza, Esteva, Pujol, Thomas, & Sanchez-Contador, 2007;Chiu, 2003;Farmer, Reddick, D'Agostino, & Jackson, 2007;George, 2000;Hay, Buckley, & Ostroff, 2005;Jepson et al, 2000;Katapodi, Lee, Facione, & Dodd, 2004).…”

The Role of GPs in Increasing Compliance to Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomised Controlled Trial (Italy)

“…The involvement of general practitioners (GP) or family practitioners has been recommended by several guidelines about screening program organisation [4][5][6]. Even though GPs are considered very important in any preventive practice because of their natural proximity to healthy beneficiaries, several studies have shown that GPs are not always well informed about CRCS practice, a consistent percentage of them do not trust FOBTs as an effective screening tests and finally there is a large variability in the recommendations given to their beneficiaries about CRCS [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14].…”