Approach to Population‑based Screening in the Czech Republic, Methodology and First Results of the Personalised Invitation of Citizens to Cancer Screening Programmes
Authors:
L. Dušek 1,2; O. Májek 1,2; M. Bláha 1,2; J. Daneš 3; M. Zavoral 4; B. Seifert 5; V. Dvořák 6; M. Skovajsová 7; Š. Suchánek 4; T. Jung 8; M. Brzková 8; P. Klika 1; D. Klimeš 1; J. Koptíková 1; J. Gregor 1
Authors place of work:
Institut bio statistiky a analýz, LF a PřF MU, Brno
1; Ústav zdravotnických informací a statistiky ČR, Praha
2; Radiodia gnostická klinika 1. LF UK a VFN v Praze
3; Interní klinika 1. LF UK a ÚVN Praha
4; Ústav všeobecného lékařství, 1. LF UK v Praze
5; Centrum ambulantní gynekologie a primární péče, Brno
6; Breast Unit Prague, Mamma centrum Háje, Praha
7; Ministerstvo zdravotnictví ČR, Praha
8
Published in the journal:
Klin Onkol 2014; 27(Supplementum 2): 59-68
doi:
https://doi.org/10.14735/amko20142S59
Summary
In January 2014, a programme of personalised invitations was launched in the Czech Republic, with the objective of inviting insured persons to cancer screening programmes; namely breast cancer screening and cervical cancer screening in women, and colorectal cancer screening both in women and men. This programme aims at strengthening the current cancer prevention programmes, and to increase the currently inadequate participation of the target population in these programmes; therefore, personalised invitations are sent to citizens who have not participated in these programmes for several years and therefore at risk of developing a serious disease. The project is coordinated by the Czech Ministry of Health in cooperation with the expert medical societies involved (gynaecology, gastroenterology, gastrointestinal oncology, diagnostic radiology, general practice), representatives of health care payers, and other experts nominated by the Minister of Health. All health care payers invite their clients (insured persons) to preventive check-ups, covering all examinations needed. The project has been realised with the assistance of financial resources from EU funds. This article describes the methodology of personalised invitations which has been implemented nationwide, its data background, and the first results of the project in the first half of 2014, when almost 1.3 million Czech citizens were invited.
Key words:
personalised invitation – screening – cancer – prevention – general practitioner – gynaecologist
This study was supported by the project 36/14//NAP “Development and implementation of methodology for the evaluation of effectiveness of personalised invitations of citizens to cancer screening programmes” as part of the programme of the Czech Ministry of Health “National action plans and conceptions”.
The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.
The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.
Submitted:
29. 8. 2014
Accepted:
30. 9. 2014
Zdroje
1. Shankaran V, Luu TH, Nonzee N et al. Costs and cost effectiveness of a health care provider‑ directed intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(32): 5370– 5375. doi: 10.1200/ JCO.2008.20.6458.
2. Mittendorf T, Petry KU, Iftner T et al. Economic evaluation of human papillomavirus screening in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 2003; 4(3): 209– 215.
3. Chirikos TN, Christman LK, Hunter S et al. Cost‑effectiveness of an intervention to increase cancer screening in primary care settings. Prev Med 2004; 39(2): 230– 238.
4. The Council of the European Union. Council Recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening (2003/ 878/ EC). Off J European Union 2003; L 327: 34– 38.
5. Poc P, Brepoels F, Busoi CC et al (eds). Written declaration on fighting colorectal cancer in the European Union. The European Parliament, PE449.546v01– 00. 20. 12. 2010.
6. Karsa L, Anttila A, Ronco G et al (eds). Cancer screening in the European Union: report on the implementation of the Council Recommendation on cancer screening. Luxembourg: European Communities 2008.
7. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M et al (eds). GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [monograph on the Internet]. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013 [cited 2014 May 6]. Available from: http:/ / globocan.iarc.fr.
8. Dušek L, Mužík J, Kubásek M et al. Epidemiologie zhoubných nádorů v České republice [Internet]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita; 2005 [citováno 30. srpna 2014]. Dostupný z: http:/ / www.svod.cz.
9. Dušek L (ed.). Czech Cancer Care in Numbers 2008– 2009. Praha: Grada Publishing 2009: 496.
10. Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. 2nd ed. Luxembourg: European Communities 2008.
11. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, Fourth Edition Supplements. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union 2013.
12. Perry N, Broeders M, De Wolf C et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2006.
13. Segnan N, Patnick J, Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2010.
14. Májek O, Daneš J, Skovajsová M et al. Breast cancer screening in the Czech Republic: time trends in performance indicators during the first seven years of the organised programme. BMC Public Health 2011; 11: 288.
15. Májek O, Danes J, Zavoral M et al. Czech National Cancer Screening Programmes in 2010. Klin Onkol 2010; 23(5): 343– 353.
16. Zavoral M, Suchánek S, Májek O et al. Population screening of colorectal carcinoma in the Czech Republic. Rozhl Chir 2009; 88(6): 292– 294.
17. Zavoral M, Suchánek S, Závada F et al. Colorectal cancer screening in Europe. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15(47): 5907– 5915.
18. Harris R, Sawaya GF, Moyer VA et al. Reconsidering the criteria for evaluating proposed screening programs: reflections from 4 current and former members of the U.S. Preventive services task force. Epidemiol Rev 2011; 33(1): 20– 35. doi: 10.1093/ epirev/ mxr005.
19. Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J et al. Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ 1999; 318(7188): 904–908.
20. Prorok PC, Kramer BS, Gohagan JK. Screening theory and study design: the basics. In: Kramer BS, Gohagan JK, Prorok PC (eds). Cancer screening – theory and practice. New York: Marcel Dekker 1999: 29– 53.
21. Miles A, Cockburn J, Smith RA et al. A perspective from countries using organized screening programs. Cancer 2004; 101 (Suppl 5): 1201– 1213.
22. Weller D, Coleman D, Robertson R et al. The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in England. Br J Cancer 2007; 97(12): 1601– 1605.
23. UK Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot Group. Results of the first round of a demonstration pilot of screening for colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom. BMJ 2004; 329(7458): 133.
24. Denis B, Ruetsch M, Strentz P et al. Short term outcomes of the first round of a pilot colorectal cancer screening programme with guaiac based faecal occult blood test. Gut 2007; 56(11): 1579– 1584.
25. Hol L, van Leerdam ME, van Ballegooijen M et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: randomised trial comparing guaiac‑based and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gut 2010; 59(1): 62– 68. doi: 10.1136/ gut.2009.177089.
26. Steele RJ, McClements PL, Libby G et al. Results from the first three rounds of the Scottish demonstration pilot of FOBT screening for colorectal cancer. Gut 2009; 58(4): 530– 535. doi: 10.1136/ gut.2008.162883.
27. Peris M, Espinàs JA, Muñoz L et al. Lessons learnt from a population‑based pilot programme for colorectal cancer screening in Catalonia (Spain). J Med Screen 2007; 14(2): 81– 86.
28. Logan RF, Patnick J, Nickerson C et al. Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests. Gut 2012; 61(10): 1439– 1446.
29. Malila N, Palva T, Malminiemi O et al. Coverage and performance of colorectal cancer screening with the faecal occult blood test in Finland. J Med Screen 2011; 18(1): 18– 23. doi: 10.1258/ jms.2010.010036.
30. Malila N, Oivanen T, Malminiemi O et al. Test, episode, and programme sensitivities of screening for colorectal cancer as a public health policy in Finland: experimental design. BMJ 2008; 337: a2261. doi: 10.1136/ bmj.a2261.
31. Malila N, Anttila A, Hakama M. Colorectal cancer screening in Finland: details of the national screening programme implemented in Autumn 2004. J Med Screen 2005; 12(1): 28– 32.
32. Giordano L, von Karsa L, Tomatis M et al. Mammographic screening programmes in Europe: organization, coverage and participation. J Med Screen 2012; 19 (Suppl 1):72– 82.
33. Sarkeala T, Anttila A, Forsman H et al. Process indicators from ten centres in the Finnish breast cancer screening programme from 1991 to 2000. Eur J Cancer 2004; 40(14): 2116– 2125.
34. Boncz I, Sebestyén A, Döbrossy L et al. The organisation and results of first screening round of the Hungarian nationwide organised breast cancer screening programme. Ann Oncol 2007; 18(4): 795– 799.
35. Autier P, Shannoun F, Scharpantgen A et al. A breast cancer screening programme operating in a liberal health care system: the Luxembourg Mammography Programme, 1992– 1997. Int J Cancer 2002; 97(6): 828– 832.
36. Hofvind S, Geller B, Vacek PM et al. Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Eur J Epidemiol 2007; 22(7): 447– 455.
37. Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ, Beemsterboer PM et al. Nation‑ wide breast cancer screening in The Netherlands: results of initial and subsequent screening 1990– 1995. National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening. Int J Cancer 1998; 75(5): 694– 698.
38. Anttila A, von Karsa L, Aasmaa A et al. Cervical cancer screening policies and coverage in Europe. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45(15): 2649– 2658. doi: 10.1016/ j.ejca.2009.07.020.
39. Anttila A, Ronco G. Description of the national situation of cervical cancer screening in the member states of the European Union. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45(15): 2685– 2708. doi: 10.1016/ j.ejca.2009.07.017.
Štítky
Paediatric clinical oncology Surgery Clinical oncologyČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Clinical Oncology
2014 Číslo Supplementum 2
- Spasmolytic Effect of Metamizole
- Metamizole at a Glance and in Practice – Effective Non-Opioid Analgesic for All Ages
- Metamizole in perioperative treatment in children under 14 years – results of a questionnaire survey from practice
- Current Insights into the Antispasmodic and Analgesic Effects of Metamizole on the Gastrointestinal Tract
- Obstacle Called Vasospasm: Which Solution Is Most Effective in Microsurgery and How to Pharmacologically Assist It?
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Performance Indicators in Screening Programmes
- Results of the Czech National Cervical Cancer Screening Programme
- Results of the Czech National Breast Cancer Screening Programme
- Epidemiology of Screening‑ targeted Cancers According to New Data of the Czech National Cancer Registry