Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hermens, R.
Right arrow Articles by Grol, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hermens, R.
Right arrow Articles by Grol, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal for Quality in Health Care 11:193-200 (1999)
© 1999 International Society for Quality in Health Care

Improving population-based cervical cancer screening in general practice: effects of a national strategy

RPMG Hermensz, E Hak0, MEJL Hulscher, J Mulder, MAJB Tacken, JCC Braspenning and RPTM Grol

Centre for Quality of Care Research (WOK), University of Nijmegen, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
0 Department of General Practice, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
z Corresponding author

Objective: To assess the effects of a Dutch national prevention programme, aimed at general practitioners (GPs), on the adherence to organizational guidelines for effective cervical cancer screening in general practice. To identify the characteristics of general practices determining success.

Design: A prospective questionnaire study with pre- and post- measurement (before and 15 months after the introduction of the national programme).

Setting and study participants: A random sample of one-third of all 4758 Dutch general practices. One GP was asked to participate per practice.

Intervention: A national GP prevention programme to improve population-based prevention of cervical cancer combining various methods for quality improvement in general practice, performed on a national, district and practice level. Outreach visitors were a key strategy in bringing about behavioural changes.

Main outcome measures: The proportion of practices adhering to 10 recommendations (in four guidelines) to reorganise effective cervical cancer screening.

Results: After 15 months, all Dutch practices showed significant improvement in adherence to nine out of 10 recommendations. Two recommendations, in particular 'identifying women who should be medically excluded from screening' and 'sending a reminder to non-compliers' showed the largest absolute increases of 26% and 33%, respectively. Besides more intensive support of outreach visitors, practice characteristics such as 'computerization' and 'delegation of many clinical tasks to the practice assistant' were important in improving the adherence to guidelines.

Conclusion: The national programme, with a combination of various methods for quality improvement, appeared to be effective in improving the organization of cervical screening in general practice. Computerization and, to a lesser extent, delegation of many clinical tasks to the practice assistant and more intensive support of practices, positively influenced the effectiveness of the national programme.

Key words: cervical cancer, general practice, guidelines adherence, organization, prevention, screening


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur J Public HealthHome page
M. A. J. B. Tacken, J. C. C. Braspenning, R. P. M. G. Hermens, P. M. M. Spreeuwenberg, H. J. M. van den Hoogen, D. H. de Bakker, P. P. Groenewegen, and R. P. T. M. Grol
Uptake of cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands is mainly influenced by women's beliefs about the screening and by the inviting organization
Eur J Public Health, April 1, 2007; 17(2): 178 - 185.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.