196 Chapter 7 21. Stüssgen R, Coppen R, van Veen E, Urbanus T, et al. Zorggegevens voor onderzoek: bezwaar of toestemming? De wet en de praktijk. 2019. 22. Sollie JW. Reuse and Sharing of Electronic Health Record Data: with a focus on Primary Care and Disease Coding. 2017. 23. Oderkirk J, Ronchi E, Klazinga N. International comparisons of health system performance among OECD countries: opportunities and data privacy protection challenges. Health Policy. 2013;112(1-2):9-18. 24. Hansen J, Wilson P, Verhoeven E, Kroneman M, et al. Assessment of the EU Member States’ rules on health data in the light of GDPR. 2021. 25. Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland. Kankeratlas 2023. Available via: https://kankeratlas. iknl.nl/. Accessed September 2023 26. Ministerie van Volksgezondheid WeS. Verzamelwet gegevensverwerking II (concept) 2023. Available via: https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/3629/b1. Accessed September 2023 27. Pharos. Landelijk expertisecentrum Pharos, 2023. Available via: https://www.pharos. nl/. Accessed September 2023 28. Giuliano AR, Mokuau N, Hughes C, Tortolero-Luna G, et al. Participation of minorities in cancer research: the influence of structural, cultural, and linguistic factors. Annals of epidemiology. 2000;10(8):S22-S34. 29. Sharrocks K, Spicer J, Camidge D, Papa S. The impact of socioeconomic status on access to cancer clinical trials. British journal of cancer. 2014;111(9):1684-7. 30. Pharos. Factsheet: Laaggeletterdheid en beperkte gezondheidsvaardigheden, 2022. 31. Buisman M, Allen J, Fouarge D, Houtkoop W, et al. PIAAC: Kernvaardigheden voor Werk en Leven. Resultaten van de Nederlandse survey 2012. ROA External Reports. 2013. 32. Heijmans M, Zwikker H, Heide I, Rademakers J. NIVEL Kennisvraag 2016: zorg op maat. Hoe kunnen we de zorg beter laten aansluiten bij mensen met lage gezondheidsvaardigheden? 2016. 33. Rademakers J. Kennissynthese: gezondheidsvaardigheden: niet voor iedereen vanzelfsprekend. 2014. 34. Hamdiui N, Stein ML, van Steenbergen J, Crutzen R, et al. Evaluation of a Web-Based Culturally Sensitive Educational Video to Facilitate Informed Cervical Cancer Screening Decisions Among Turkish-and Moroccan-Dutch Women Aged 30 to 60 Years: Randomized Intervention Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2022;24(10):e35962. 35. Spadea T, Bellini S, Kunst A, Stirbu I, et al. The impact of interventions to improve attendance in female cancer screening among lower socioeconomic groups: a review. Preventive medicine. 2010;50(4):159-64. 36. Reath J, Carey M. Breast and cervical cancer in Indigenous women: overcoming barriers to early detection. Australian family physician. 2008;37(3). 37. Bertels LS, van Asselt KM, van Weert HC, Dekker E, et al. Reasons for No Colonoscopy After an Unfavorable Screening Result in Dutch Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Nationwide Questionnaire. The Annals of Family Medicine. 2022;20(6):526-34. 38. Hamdiui N, Marchena E, Stein ML, van Steenbergen JE, et al. Decision-making, barriers, and facilitators regarding cervical cancer screening participation among Turkish and Moroccan women in the Netherlands: a focus group study. Ethnicity & Health. 2022;27(5):1147-65. 39. Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap. Registratie-adviezen (ICPC) bij NHG-Standaarden, 2022. Available via: https://www.nhg.org/praktijkvoering/informatisering/registratieadviezen-icpc-nhg-standaarden/. Accessed September 2023 40. Sollie A, Roskam J, Sijmons RH, Numans ME, et al. Do GPs know their patients with cancer? Assessing the quality of cancer registration in Dutch primary care: a crosssectional validation study. BMJ open. 2016;6(9):e012669.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw