Impact of GP reminders on follow-up of abnormal cervical cytology: A before-after study in Danish general practice

14Citations
Citations of this article
38Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background Dysplasia may progress because of a loss to follow-up after an abnormal cervical cytology. Approximately 18% of Danish women postpone the recommended follow-up, which depends on the cytology results. Aim To investigate if a reminder to the GP about missed follow-up could reduce the proportion of women who fail to act on a recommended follow-up, and to analyse the effect on sociodemographic and general practice variations. Design and setting A national electronic GP reminder system was launched in Denmark in 2012 to target missed follow-up after screening, opportunistic testing, or surveillance indication. The authors compared follow-up proportions in a national observational before-after study. Method From national registries, 1.5 million cervical cytologies (from 2009 to 2013) were eligible for inclusion. Approximately 10% had a recommendation for follow-up. The proportion of cervical cytologies without follow-up was calculated at different time points. Results were stratified by follow-up recommendations and sociodemographic characteristics, and changes in practice variation for follow-up were analysed. Results Fewer women with a recommendation for follow-up missed follow-up 6 months after a GP reminder. Follow-up improved in all investigated sociodemographic groups (age, ethnicity, education, and cohabitation status). Interaction was found for age and cohabitation status. Variation between practices in loss to follow-up was significantly reduced. Conclusion An electronic GP reminder system showed potential to improve the quality of cervical cancer screening through reduced loss to follow-up.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kristiansen, B. K., Andersen, B., Bro, F., Svanholm, H., & Vedsted, P. (2017). Impact of GP reminders on follow-up of abnormal cervical cytology: A before-after study in Danish general practice. British Journal of General Practice, 67(661), e580–e587. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X691913

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free