Using patient and general practice characteristics to explain variations in cervical smear uptake rates

Why do women participate in the English cervical cancer screening programme?

“…Interestingly enough, our result is in harmony with one of the earliest studies of compliance with cervical screening in England (Elkind et al, 1988), which found that embarrassment was "pervasive" amongst non-attenders. Embarrassment probably explains why, in the past, female GPs were more successful than their male counterparts in increasing participation (Majeed et al, 1994;Ibbotson et al, 1996). The logistic regression result suggests that discomfort may not be acting as a deterrent of the same order as pain and embarrassment, and might simply be tolerated and discounted within the broader participation decision.…”

Women and health checks: Making sense of differential uptake

“…There is also evidence to suggest differential uptake of screening services. Women are more likely than men to have regular dental check-ups, for example-61% of women do so, compared with 46% of men-but those from higher social classes are more likely to do so than those from lower ones-71% of professional women, compared with 52% of the unskilled women (Social Trends 28, Table 7.23, and see also Majeed et al, 1994). Furthermore, children are more likely to visit the dentist regularly if their mothers do so.…”

“…Furthermore, children are more likely to visit the dentist regularly if their mothers do so. Area-based studies suggest variations in uptake of screenindpreventive services, with rates as low as 50% in some deprivedinner-city areas and as high as 80% in affluent suburban and rural areas (Editorial, Lancet, 1991-and see also Baker & Klein, 1991;Majeed et al, 1994). At the individual level there are strong suggestions of consistency in compliance: those who attend for one type of screening are more likely to attend for others, to take regular exercise, to use health foods and to display some positive knowledge and beliefs about health promotion (Hobbs et al, 1980;Calnan 1984;Maclean et al, 1984;Deans et al, 1986;French et al, 1982;Fallowfield & Clark 1991;Hollyoak 1991).…”

What determines a patient’s treatment? Evidence from out of hours primary care co-op data in the Republic of Ireland

“…Factors that cause these variations include socioeconomic status [5,6] practice characteristics [7] and patient characteristics [7]. This analysis will explore the latter two factors in relation to variations in OOH co-op service provision, although socioeconomic status cannot be included due to lack of data.…”