The Improvement Foundation - Helping Tackle The Decline In Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake
Main Category: Cervical Cancer / HPV VaccineAlso Included In: Cancer / Oncology
Article Date: 07 Jun 2009 - 0:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
2.33 (3 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
|
| Article Opinions: | 1 posts |
Cervical Cancer Awareness Week 8-14 June 2009 is a key time to remind women that it is of huge importance that they attend their screening appointment when asked. The Improvement Foundation (IF) aim to help tackle the decline in screening uptake by addressing levels of complacency among clinicians and the public through their national Cervical Screening Improvement Programme.
With the uptake of cervical screening dropping across all age groups, the biggest fall being in the 25-34s, IF is working with frontline staff, at sites across the country, to support improvements in the cervical screening service in general practice and primary care trusts and achieve large scale change.
This is done by improving the systems and processes already in place, addressing the barriers to screening and raising awareness amongst staff and patients. IF believes that it is necessary to tackle all these aspects to achieve lasting change, and to address some of the reasons why younger women in particular are not responding to the offer of tests.
The work being carried out by IF is part of a fifteen month structured programme, commissioned by the Department of Health, to introduce lasting changes which will improve women's experience of the way cervical screening is offered.
The IF Cervical Screening Improvement Programme brings together people involved across the cervical screening pathway from GPs to reception staff, and practice managers to public health specialists. For some, this is the first time the team has come together, allowing them to share and understand the barriers faced by their local communities and identify effective local resources to raise knowledge and awareness of the importance of cervical screening with the target age group.
Cervical screening saves lives, the lives of young women, many of them mothers of young children. IF is committed to making a difference in the numbers of 25-34 year olds who are screened.
For more information about the Cervical Screening Improvement Programme please visit http://www.improvementfoundation.org/cervicalscreening
Source
The Improvement Foundation
Visit our cervical cancer / hpv vaccine section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
12 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/152804.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/152804.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
Cervical screening exposes us to risk and benefits a tiny number of women
posted by Elizabeth on 25 Oct 2010 at 3:33 amIf you want to deal with women fairly then start telling us the truth about cervical cancer and screening.(and breast screening)
The general acceptance that it's fine to mislead women and ignore the legal requirement of informed consent is disgraceful.
Cervical cancer is rare, always was and in steady decline before screening started...a high risk woman has a 1% lifetime risk from this cancer, low risk women LESS than 1% BUT, screening is unreliable and produces LOTS of false positives and some false negatives.
An Australian woman has a 77% lifetime risk of an "abnormal" smear, colposcopy and usually a biopsy over her lifetime. More than 76% of referrals are unnecessary. Some women are left with health issues after unnecessary biopsies or treatment - psychological/psychosexual issues, damage to the cervix (especially after LEEP and cone biopsies) - leading to infertility, miscarriages, high risk pregnancies, premature birth and more c-sections.
Only 0.65% of women benefit from pap smears, 0.35% get false negatives and 99% derive no benefit at all.
I have never considered this test "vitally important" - far from it, the risks exceed the benefits in my opinion - I have concentrated on prevention of infection with HPV instead. I'm not prepared to have an unreliable test to prevent a rare cancer and especially when my personal risk is near zero.
The Govt pushes screening because they must screen 80% of women to stand a chance of bringing down the already small death rate. They know they'll harm far more than they'll help, but now this expensive program is in place they need to show a decline in the death rate to justify the huge expense and save political face. Dr's also make a fortune from this test and all the negative outcomes - they also get paid behind our backs by the Govt to achieve screening targets for pap tests? See the Financial Incentives Legislation - currently set at 65% of patients. (they also apply in the UK and NZ)
Why would the Govt pay doctors to screen for the rarest (by miles) of the cancers we currently screen for? Because this testing is a long shot, this test was never suitable for mass screening. It fails all 3 criteria for a successful screening program:
a) is it a common cancer? No
b) Is it a reliable test? No
c) Is it acceptable to women. Most women hate/dislike the test, some find it painful or humiliating.
Screening does not help women under 25 (some say 30) but exposes them to high risk from false positives.
Finland has the lowest rates of cc in the world - they offer screening 5 yearly from 30 - 5 to 7 tests in total.
If you'd like to look at the facts, forget the screening websites - go to Dr Joel Sherman's medical privacy blog and under women's privacy issues you'll find all my references. I'd recommend the DeMay article, American pathologist (my statistics) and anything by Angela Raffle, UK screening expert - her research in the BMJ in 2003 made doctors and the govt squirm - "1000 women need regular smears for 35 years to save one woman from cc." How many women are harmed over those years? Does anyone even care?
Google, "Why I'll never have another smear test" by Anna Saybourn, in response to Dr Raffle's research.
Be very careful with mammograms as well - once again we haven't been told the truth. Go to the Nordic Cochrane Institute website and read, "The risks and benefits of mammograms" for an unbiased summary.
American women have a 95% lifetime risk of referral for colposcopy/biopsies due to shocking over-screening and widespread inappropriate screening. (women not yet sexually active, women who've had full hysterectomies for benign conditions, women in lifetime mutually monogamous relationships, the elderly, the very young (under 25 or 30) & pregnant women) Australia also screen women under 25...
The American well-woman exam is not evidence based - routine pelvic exams in asymptomatic women are of little clinical value but expose the woman to risk - more procedures, even surgery.
Clinical breast exams do not bring down the death rate from cancer but cause biopsies.
Routine rectal exams - too ridiculous for words!
The only thing required for the Pill is your medical history and a blood pressure test. Demanding cancer screening or well-woman checks is a violation of the Patient Bill of Rights.
Also see Blogcritics and Unnecessary Pap smears and the Violet to Blue site.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.




