48 Chapter 2 Supplementary Table 1. Characteristics of the included quantitative studies, per type of cancer screening programme Cervical cancer screening programme Reference Study design Number of participants (n) Participants, collection period, region Characteristics Outcomes I-Change model (Gok, Heideman et al. 2012) Ref: 38 Retrospective observational cohort study 54,482 nonresponders Group 1: 27,792 (selfsampling group 1) & 281 (recall/control group). Group 2: 26,145 (selfsampling group 2) & 264 (recall/control group). Women, age 30-60. Between December 2006 to March 2008. North Holland and Flevoland. Nonresponder= Women who had not responded to two invitations from the regular screening programme in 2005 & 2006. Self-sampling tool per group: 1: Delphi-Screener 2: VibaBrush Age (group) Screening history Method invitation Country of birth Self-sampling: 29% Recall: 12% Group 1: 27% Group 2: 31% Native Dutch non-attendees responded better than immigrants (32% vs. 22%, p<0.001) and those screened in previous round revealed higher response than underscreened or never screened. ≥ CINII rates were higher amongst responding native Dutch women than immigrants (p<0.001), and higher in under-/never- screened women than in women screened in the previous round (p<0.001). Self-sampling increases efficacy screening programme by targeting a substantial portion of non-attendees of all ethnic groups who have not regularly been screened and are at highest risk of ≥CIN II. Predisposing factors Awareness factors
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw