How can we develop a cost-effective quality cervical screening programme?
This article discusses the evidence base underpinning the United Kingdom cervical screening programme and proposes that there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that too many women are screened too frequently. The financial savings generated from increasing the screening interval to five years and restricting routine screening to women aged 25 to 50 years may, we suggest, be better spent on improving the quality of the cervical screening programme. Re-awakening this debate must not however deflect energy and effort from recruiting women who have never been screened or further developing quality control systems. Any debate must also fully engage women of all ages as the key stakeholders in the decision-making process.
Wilson
Sue
S
Department of Primary Care and General Practice, Public and Occupational Health, University of Birmingham. s.wilson@bham.ac.uk
Lester
Helen
H
D000328:Adult; D000367:Age Factors; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000458:organization & administration*; D008875:Middle Aged; D016730:Program Development; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D006113:United Kingdom; D002583:Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis*