BackgroundThe European Community recommends the implementation of population-based screening programmes for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancers. This recommendation is supported by many observational studies showing that organised programmes effectively reduce mortality and control the inappropriate use of screening tests. We conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the efficacy of interventions to increase participation in organised population-based screening programs.MethodsWe included all studies on interventions aimed at increasing screening participation published between 1/1999 and 7/2012. For those published before 1999, we considered the Jepson et al. (2000) review (Health Technol Assess 4:1-133, 2000).ResultsIncluding studies from the Jepson review, we found 69 with quantitative information on interventions in organised screening: 19 for cervical, 26 for breast, 20 colorectal cancers, and 4 for cervical and breast cancer together.Effective interventions were: postal (breast RR = 1,37 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI): 1.25-1.51; cervical RR = 1.71 95% CI: 1.60-1.83; colorectal RR = 1.33 95% CI: 1.17-1.51) and telephone reminders (with heterogeneous methods for implementation); GP’s signature on invitation letter (breast RR = 1.13 95% CI: 1.11-1.16; cervical RR = 1.20 95% CI: 1.10-1.30; colorectal RR = 1.15 95% CI: 1.07-1.24); scheduled appointment instead of open appointment (breast RR = 1.26 95% CI: 1.02-1.55; cervical RR = 1.49 95% CI: 1.27-1.75; colorectal RR = 1.79 95% CI: 1.65-1.93). Mailing a kit for self-sampling cervical specimens increased participation in non-responders (RR = 2.37 95% CI: 1.44-3.90).ConclusionAlthough some interventions did prove to be effective, some specific variables may influence their effectiveness in and applicability to organised population-based screening programs.

No abstract

SUMMARY BackgroundA variety of tests have been proposed for colorectal cancer (CRC), giving rise to uncertainty regarding the optimal approach. The efficacy and effectiveness of different tests are related to both screenee participation and the detection rate.

BackgroundThe estimate of the prevalence of the most common chronic conditions (CCs) is calculated using direct methods such as prevalence surveys but also indirect methods using health administrative databases.The aim of this study is to provide estimates prevalence of CCs in Lazio region of Italy (including Rome), using the drug prescription's database and to compare these estimates with those obtained using other health administrative databases.MethodsPrevalence of CCs was estimated using pharmacy data (PD) using the Anathomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System (ATC).Prevalences estimate were compared with those estimated by hospital information system (HIS) using list of ICD9-CM diagnosis coding, registry of exempt patients from health care cost for pathology (REP) and national health survey performed by the Italian bureau of census (ISTAT).ResultsFrom the PD we identified 20 CCs. About one fourth of the population received a drug for treating a cardiovascular disease, 9% for treating a rheumatologic conditions.The estimated prevalences using the PD were usually higher that those obtained with one of the other sources. Regarding the comparison with the ISTAT survey there was a good agreement for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and thyroid disorder whereas for rheumatologic conditions, chronic respiratory illnesses, migraine and Alzheimer's disease, the prevalence estimates were lower than those estimated by ISTAT survey. Estimates of prevalences derived by the HIS and by the REP were usually lower than those of the PD (but malignancies, chronic renal diseases).ConclusionOur study showed that PD can be used to provide reliable prevalence estimates of several CCs in the general population.

This case-control study identified family history of any cancer (and to a less extent of pancreatic adenocarcinoma), CP, high alcohol intake, and recent-onset diabetes as risk factors for PET, thus suggesting a possible partial overlap with risk factors for exocrine pancreatic carcinogenesis.