BMJ  1989;299:160-162 (15 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.299.6692.160

Prospective randomised controlled trial of methods of call and recall for cervical cytology screening.

Department of General Practice, United Medical School, Guy's Hospital, London.

OBJECTIVE--To discover whether systematic methods of call and recall are more effective than a non-systematic method and to see which of the two systematic methods was more effective. DESIGN--Prospective randomised controlled trial over a year. SETTING--One group general practice. PATIENTS--416 Women over 35 eligible for a smear test who had never had a cervical smear test or in whom a smear test was overdue (previous test more than five years before). INTERVENTIONS--One group received written invitations to have a smear taken. The second group had their notes tagged so that the doctor would remind them (when they attended for another reason) to have a smear test. No special intervention was made in the third group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Performance of a cervical smear test during the year of the study. RESULTS--32% (45/140) of the screened group, 27% (39/142) of the tagged group, and 15% (20/134) of the control group had a smear test during the year. The percentage of women having a smear test in the screened group was not significantly different from that in the tagged group, but the percentages in the two groups were significantly different from that in the control group. Whether a woman had had a previous smear test significantly affected the uptake of the invitation to have a smear test independently of the method of invitation. CONCLUSIONS--The systematic methods of call and recall were more effective than a non-systematic method. There was no significant difference between the two systematic methods (sending letters or tagging the notes) at one year.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Call and recall for cervical cytology screening.

N. Masters and H. Elmes
BMJ 1989 299: 567. [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Dexheimer, J. W., Talbot, T. R., Sanders, D. L., Rosenbloom, S. T., Aronsky, D. (2008). Prompting Clinicians about Preventive Care Measures: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 15: 311-320 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Shakeshaft, A. P., Frankish, C. J. (2003). Using patient-driven computers to provide cost-effective prevention in primary care: a conceptual framework. HEALTH PROMOT INT 18: 67-77 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Stone, E. G., Morton, S. C., Hulscher, M. E., Maglione, M. A., Roth, E. A., Grimshaw, J. M., Mittman, B. S., Rubenstein, L. V., Rubenstein, L. Z., Shekelle, P. G. (2002). Interventions That Increase Use of Adult Immunization and Cancer Screening Services: A Meta-Analysis. ANN INTERN MED 136: 641-651 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hobbs, F.D.R. (2002). Does pre-operative education of patients improve outcomes? The impact of pre-operative education on recovery following coronary artery bypass surgery: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Eur Heart J 23: 600-601 [Full text]  
• Box, V. (1998). Cervical screening: the knowledge and opinions of black and minority ethnic women and of health advocates in East London. Health Education Journal 57: 3-15 [Abstract]  
• Curtis, P., Mintzer, M., Resnick, J., Morrell, D., Hendrix, S. (1996). The Quality of Cervical Cancer Screening: A Primary Care Perspective. American Journal of Medical Quality 11: 11-17 [Abstract]  
• Davis, D. A., Thomson, M. A., Oxman, A. D., Haynes, R. B. (1995). Changing Physician Performance: A Systematic Review of the Effect of Continuing Medical Education Strategies. JAMA 274: 700-705 [Abstract]  
• Macharia, W. M., Leon, G., Rowe, B. H., Stephenson, B. J., Haynes, R. B. (1992). An Overview of Interventions to Improve Compliance With Appointment Keeping for Medical Services. JAMA 267: 1813-1817 [Abstract]  

Online poll

Find out more here>> and here>>