128 Chapter 5 analysis was performed on Clincalc.com to determine the size needed for the study population in order to detect a relevant difference in outcome.16 Using the anticipated incidence of 18%, resulted in a needed sample size of n=22 (α 0.05, β 0.2). When lowering the adjusted rate to a safer prediction and expecting an outcome of 12%, the needed sample size was set at n=53 (α 0.05, β 0.2). Data analysis The prevalence of screen-positive women from the study compared with the prevalence rates of the last available regional data from the Dutch CSP in 2018.15,17 Data were analysed descriptively using counts (percentages), prevalence rates and prevalence ratios (PRs). The prevalence ratios and their confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by performing binomial tests. The null hypothesis was that the prevalence rate of screenpositive marginalized women, is equal to the prevalence rate of women screened by the Dutch cervical CSP. In Tables 1 and 2 the data are subdivided per age cohorts of 5 years, comparable to the 5-yearly screening. In order to provide the PR, a calculation was performed excluding and including the women under the age of 30. Additionally, screen-positive women were compared on the basis of their legal-status (undocumented versus documented). For both PR calculations, the regional prevalence rates of screen-positive women by the Dutch CSP were used. These rates are displayed in the Supplementary Table. To evaluate the various invitations approaches, the number of included participants per approach were counted. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 25.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw