Screening for intimate partner violence in health care settings: a randomized trial. Improving uptake of cervical cancer screening in women with prolonged history of non-attendance for screening: a randomized trial of enhanced invitation methods. A randomized trial of three videos that differ in the framing of information about mammography in women 40 to 49 years old. Health professionals' and service users' interpretation of screening test results: experimental study. Improving uptake of breast screening in multiethnic populations: a randomised controlled trial using practice reception staff to contact non-attenders. A randomized trial of office-based screening for common problems in older persons. Outcome of screening by clinical examination of the breast in a trial in the Philippines. Can the uptake of breast screening by Asian women be increased? A randomized controlled trial of a linkworker intervention. Informed choice in mammography screening: a randomized trial of a decision aid for 70-year-old women. Randomised controlled trial of the effect of evidence based information on women's willingness to participate in cervical cancer screening.
Whether intimate partner violence (IPV) screening reduces violence or improves health outcomes for women is unknown.
                To determine the effectiveness of IPV screening and communication of positive results to clinicians.
                Randomized controlled trial conducted in 11 emergency departments, 12 family practices, and 3 obstetrics/gynecology clinics in Ontario, Canada, among 6743 English-speaking female patients aged 18 to 64 years who presented between July 2005 and December 2006, could be seen individually, and were well enough to participate.
                Women in the screened group (n=3271) self-completed the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST); if a woman screened positive, this information was given to her clinician before the health care visit. Subsequent discussions and/or referrals were at the discretion of the treating clinician. The nonscreened group (n=3472) self-completed the WAST and other measures after their visit.
                Women disclosing past-year IPV were interviewed at baseline and every 6 months until 18 months regarding IPV reexposure and quality of life (primary outcomes), as well as several health outcomes and potential harms of screening.
                Participant loss to follow-up was high: 43% (148/347) of screened women and 41% (148/360) of nonscreened women. At 18 months (n = 411), observed recurrence of IPV among screened vs nonscreened women was 46% vs 53% (modeled odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-2.12). Screened vs nonscreened women exhibited about a 0.2-SD greater improvement in quality-of-life scores (modeled score difference at 18 months, 3.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-7.00). When multiple imputation was used to account for sample loss, differences between groups were reduced and quality-of-life differences were no longer significant. Screened women reported no harms of screening.
                Although sample attrition urges cautious interpretation, the results of this trial do not provide sufficient evidence to support IPV screening in health care settings. Evaluation of services for women after identification of IPV remains a priority.
                clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182468. To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three methods of inviting women with a long history of non-attendance to undergo cervical screening.
                Randomized controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. In all, 1140 women were identified from routine NHS screening records as having no smear for at least 15 years and randomly allocated to receive a telephone call from a nurse, a letter from a well-known celebrity (Claire Rayner) or letter from the local NHS Cervical Screening Commissioner. Uptake of screening was measured using routine data and attributed to interventions if occurring within three months. Uptake was compared with a control group. Costs of carrying out the interventions were noted from the perspective of the NHS and cost-effectiveness, as cost per additional attender, calculated.
                Uptake following all interventions was low: telephone call (1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-3.6%); celebrity letter (1.8, 95% CI 0.57-4.0%); commissioner letter (4.6, 95% CI 2.5-7.7%); control group (1.8, 95% CI 0.57-4.0%). There were no significant differences between groups. Telephone intervention was not possible in a quarter of women whose numbers were unlisted. Telephone intervention was the most expensive and least effective of the interventions. The commissioner letter yielded an additional attender within three months at an incremental cost of 23.21 pounds compared with taking no action.
                Neither a telephone call from a nurse nor a letter from a celebrity to encourage attendance for cervical screening were effective or cost-effective in women with a prolonged history of non-participation in the screening programme. A letter from the local cervical screening programme commissioner resulted in a small, non-significant increase in uptake. The low cost and ease of implementation of this intervention supports further research into its use in routine practice. To assess the effect of providing structured information about the benefits and harms of mammography in differing frames on women's perceptions of screening.
                Randomized control trial.
                General internal medicine academic practice.
                One hundred seventy-nine women aged 35 through 49.
                Women received 1 of 3 5-minute videos about the benefits and harms of screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49. These videos differed only in the way the probabilities of potential outcomes were framed (positive, neutral, or negative).
                We measured the change in accurate responses to questions about potential benefits and harms of mammography, and the change in the proportion of participants who perceived that the benefits of mammography were more important than the harms. Before seeing the videos, women's knowledge about the benefits and harms of mammography was inaccurate (82% responded incorrectly to all 3 knowledge questions). After seeing the videos, the proportion that answered correctly increased by 52%, 43%, and 30% for the 3 knowledge questions, respectively, but there were no differences between video frames. At baseline, most women thought the benefits of mammography outweighed the harms (79% positive frame, 80% neutral frame, and 85% negative frame). After the videos, these proportions were similar among the 3 groups (84%, 81%, 83%, P =.93).
                Women improved the accuracy of their responses to questions about the benefits and harms of mammography after seeing the videos, but this change was not affected by the framing of information. Women strongly perceived that the benefits of mammography outweighed the harms, and providing accurate information had no effect on these perceptions, regardless of how it was framed. To investigate the accuracy of interpretation of probabilistic screening information by different stakeholder groups and whether presentation as frequencies improves accuracy.
                Between participants experimental design; participants responded to screening information embedded in a scenario.
                Regional maternity service and national conferences and training days.
                43 pregnant women attending their first antenatal appointment in a regional maternity service; 40 companions accompanying the women to their appointments; 42 midwives; 41 obstetricians. Participation rates were 56%, 48%, 89%, and 71% respectively.
                Participants estimated the probability that a positive screening test result meant that a baby actually had Down's syndrome on the basis of all the relevant information, which was presented in a scenario. They were randomly assigned to scenarios that presented the information in percentage (n = 86) or frequency (n = 83) format. They also gave basic demographic information and rated their confidence in their estimate.
                Most responses (86%) were incorrect. Obstetricians gave significantly more correct answers (although still only 34% [corrected]) than either midwives (0%) or pregnant women (9%). Overall, the proportion of correct answers was higher for presentation as frequencies (24%) than for presentation as percentages (6%), but further analysis showed that this difference occurred only in responses from obstetricians. Many health professionals were confident in their incorrect responses.
                Most stakeholders in pregnancy screening draw incorrect inferences from probabilistic information, and health professionals need to be aware of the difficulties that both they and their patients have with such information. Moreover, they should be aware that different people make different mistakes and that ways of conveying information that help some people will not help others. To determine whether a two hour training programme for general practice reception staff could improve uptake in patients who had failed to attend for breast screening, and whether women from different ethnic groups benefited equally.
                Controlled trial, randomised by general practice.
                Inner London borough of Newham.
                2064 women aged 50-64 years who had failed to attend for breast screening. Women came from 26 of 37 eligible practices, 31% were white, 17% were Indian, 10% Pakistani, 14% black, 6% Bangladeshi, 1% Chinese, 4% were from other ethnic groups, and in 16% the ethnic group was not reported.
                Attendance for breast screening in relation to ethnic group in women who had not taken up their original invitation.
                Attendance in the intervention group was significantly better than in the control group (9% v 4%). The response was best in Indian women--it was 19% in the intervention group and 5% in the control group.
                This simple, low cost intervention improved breast screening rates modestly. Improvement was greatest in Indian women--probably because many practice staff shared their cultural and linguistic background. This intervention could be effective as part of a multifaceted strategy to improve uptake in areas with low rates. To test the effectiveness of a 10-minute office-staff administered screen to evaluate malnutrition/weight loss, visual impairment, hearing loss, cognitive impairment, urinary incontinence, depression, physical limitations, and reduced leg mobility among older persons seen in office practice. This screen was coupled with clinical summaries to assist the physician in further evaluating and managing the screen-included problems.
                Twenty-six community-based office practices of internists and family physicians in Los Angeles were randomized to intervention or control groups. Two hundred and sixty-one patients aged > or = 70 years and seeing these physicians for a new visit or a physical examination participated in the study. At the enrollment visit intervention group patients were administered the screening measure and their physicians were given the pertinent clinical summaries. Outcome measures were detection of, and intervention for conditions screened, and health status 6 months after the intervention.
                Hearing loss was both more commonly detected (40% intervention versus 28% control) and further evaluated (29% versus 16%) by physicians in the intervention group (P < 0.05). No other differences in the frequency of problem detection or intervention were noted between groups. Six months after the intervention no differences were noted in health status between groups.
                A brief measure to screen for common conditions in older persons was associated with more frequent detection and follow-up assessment of hearing loss. Although the measure was well accepted by physicians and their staffs, it did not appear to affect detection and intervention in regard to the other screen-included conditions, or health status at 6 months. The value of screening by Clinical Examination of the Breast (CBE) as a means of reducing mortality from breast cancer (BC) is not established. The issue is relevant, as CBE may be a suitable option for countries in economic transition, where incidence rates are on the increase but limited resources do not permit screening by mammography. Our aims were to assess whether mass screening by CBE carried out by trained para-medical personnel is feasible in an urban population of a low-income country, and its efficacy in reducing BC mortality. Our study was designed as a randomised controlled trial of the effect on BC mortality of 5 annual CBE carried out by trained nurses. The target population was women aged 35-64 years, resident in 12 municipalities of the National Capital Region of Manila, Philippines. The units of randomization were the 202 health centres (HC) within the selected municipalities. During 1995 nurses and midwives were recruited and trained in performing CBE. The first round of screening took place in 1996-1997. The intervention however showed a refractory attitude of the population with respect to clinical follow-up and was discontinued after the completion of the first screening round. Cases of breast cancer occurring in the study population during 1996-1999 were identified by the 2 local population-based registries. In the single screening round 151,168 women were interviewed and offered CBE, 92% accepted (138,392), 3,479 were detected positive for a lump and referred for diagnosis. Of these only 1220 women (35%) completed diagnostic follow-up, whereas 42.4% actively refused further investigation even with home visits, and 22.5% were not traced. Of 53 cases that occurred among screen-positive women in the 2 years after CBE only 34 were diagnosed through the intervention. Eighty cases occurred among screen-negative women. The test sensitivity for CBE repeated annually was 53.2%. The actual sensitivity of the programme was 25.6% and positive predictive value 1%. Screen-detected cases were non-significantly less advanced than the others. Previous studies have shown that most breast cancer cases in the Philippines present at advanced stages and have an unfavourable outcome. Although CBE undertaken by health workers seems to offer a cost-effective approach to reducing mortality, the sensitivity of the screening programme in the real context was low. Moreover, in this relatively well-educated population, cultural and logistic barriers to seeking diagnosis and treatment persist and need to be addressed before any screening programme is introduced.
                Copyright 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc. This study investigates the effectiveness of a linkworker intervention, giving encouragement and explanations about breast screening, on the subsequent attendance for screening by 'Asian' women. The control group received no visits. The study population comprised all women with Asian names, from a batch of general practices where high proportions of patients were Asian, who were invited for screening. It was found that 59 per cent of the intervention group could be contacted by linkworkers. No difference in attendance was found between the intervention and control groups (49 per cent and 47 per cent). Twenty-five per cent of women were permanently or temporarily not resident at the invitation address. Attendance for screening was related to length of stay in the United Kingdom. This type of intervention was not a successful strategy for promoting uptake by Asian women, and indicates that it is essential to evaluate rigorously projects with such objectives. Many women who have participated in mammography screening are now approaching 70 years of age. These women are advised to consider both the benefits and harms of continuing to be screened. Doing so may be difficult for individual women, and there are no evaluated decision support tools to assist them.
                To assess the effect of a decision aid (DA) about whether to continue or stop mammography screening for women aged 70 years, a population-based, randomized controlled trial was conducted in New South Wales, Australia. Women aged 70 years who had regularly participated in mammography screening were eligible to participate in the trial. Women received a DA providing balanced, quantitative information or standard information available from the screening program. The main outcomes were the percentage of women making an informed choice about whether to continue or stop screening and the percentage of women participating in the screening.
                Women who received the DA (the intervention group) were better informed than the control group (mean increase in knowledge score out of 10, 2.62 for the intervention group vs 0.68 for the control group; P < .001), and a significantly greater percentage made an informed choice (73.5% vs 48.8%; P < .001). The DA did not increase anxiety and slightly reduced decisional conflict. There was no difference in the percentage of women who participated in screening within 1 month.
                This DA increased knowledge and assisted women to make an informed choice. It did not alter participation in screening. The DA is an effective way to assist women to make a decision about continuing mammography screening and seems to be a feasible intervention within a population screening program. To assess whether providing women with additional information on the pros and cons of screening, compared with information currently offered by the NHS, affects their intention to attend for screening.
                Randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the control, (based on an NHS Cervical Screening Programme leaflet currently used), or the intervention leaflet (containing additional information on risks and uncertainties).
                Three general practices in Birmingham.
                300 women aged 20 to 64 attending the practices during a one month period.
                Intention to attend for screening. Main results: 283 women (94.3%) completed the study. Fewer women in the intervention (79%) than the control group (88%) expressed intention to have screening after reading the information leaflet (difference between groups 9.2%, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 3.2% to 21.7%). The crude odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI was 0.50 (0.26 to 0.97). After adjusting for other factors, the trend persisted (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.29). Having a previous Pap smear was the only significant predictor of intention to have screening (adjusted OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.21). Subgroup analysis showed no intervention effect in intended uptake between women at higher and lower risk of cervical cancer (p=0.59).
                Providing women with evidence based information on the risks, uncertainties, and the benefits of screening, is likely to deter some, but not differentially those at higher risk.
Screening is likely to increase identification rates but rates of referral to support agencies are low and as yet we know little about the proportions of false measurement (negatives or positives). Screening does not appear to cause harm, but only one study examined this outcome. As there is an absence of evidence of long-term benefit for women, there is insufficient evidence to justify universal screening in healthcare settings. Studies comparing screening versus case finding (with or without advocacy or therapeutic interventions) for women's long-term wellbeing would better inform future policies in healthcare settings.