기관회원 [로그인]
소속기관에서 받은 아이디, 비밀번호를 입력해 주세요.
개인회원 [로그인]

비회원 구매시 입력하신 핸드폰번호를 입력해 주세요.
본인 인증 후 구매내역을 확인하실 수 있습니다.

회원가입
서지반출
Is the Phone Call the Most Effective Method for Recall in Cervical Cancer Screening? - Results from a Randomised Control Trial
[STEP1]서지반출 형식 선택
파일형식
@
서지도구
SNS
기타
[STEP2]서지반출 정보 선택
  • 제목
  • URL
돌아가기
확인
취소
  • Is the Phone Call the Most Effective Method for Recall in Cervical Cancer Screening? - Results from a Randomised Control Trial
  • Is the Phone Call the Most Effective Method for Recall in Cervical Cancer Screening? - Results from a Randomised Control Trial
저자명
Rashid. Rima Marhayu Abdul,Mohamed. Majdah,Hamid. Zaleha Abdul,Dahlui. Maznah
간행물명
Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP
권/호정보
2013년|14권 10호|pp.5901-5904 (4 pages)
발행정보
아시아태평양암예방학회
파일정보
정기간행물|ENG|
PDF텍스트
주제분야
기타
이 논문은 한국과학기술정보연구원과 논문 연계를 통해 무료로 제공되는 원문입니다.
서지반출

기타언어초록

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of different methods of recall for repeat Pap smear among women who had normal smears in the previous screening. Design: Prospective randomized controlled study. Setting: All community clinics in Klang under the Ministry of Health Malaysia. Participants: Women of Klang who attended cervical screening and had a normal Pap smear in the previous year, and were due for a repeat smear were recruited and randomly assigned to four different methods of recall for repeat smear. Intervention: The recall methods given to the women to remind them for a repeat smear were either by postal letter, registered letter, short message by phone (SMS) or phone call. Main Outcome Measures: Number and percentage of women who responded to the recall within 8 weeks after they had received the recall, irrespective whether they had Pap test conducted. Also the numbers of women in each recall method that came for repeat Pap smear. Results: The rates of recall messages reaching the women when using letter, registered letter, SMS and phone calls were 79%, 87%, 66% and 68%, respectively. However, the positive responses to recall by letter, registered letter, phone messages and telephone call were 23.9%, 23.0%, 32.9% and 50.9%, respectively (p<0.05). Furthermore, more women who received recall by phone call had been screened (p<0.05) compared to those who received recall by postal letter (OR=2.38, CI=1.56-3.62). Conclusion: Both the usual way of sending letters and registered letters had higher chances of reaching patients compared to using phone either for sending messages or calling. The response to the recall method and uptake of repeat smear, however, were highest via phone call, indicating the importance of direct communication.