Skip to main content

Primary care factors associated with cervical screening coverage in England


An article published recently in the Journal of Public Health by Dr Ji Bang and colleagues reported wide variations in cervical screening uptake, both across primary care trusts (PCTs) and also at general practice level. Rates were lowest in general practices with high proportions of women who are young, non-white, and deprived. The study showed that the proportion of female patients aged 25-49 years, the percentage of black and ethnic minority patients, and the Index of Multiple Deprivation score were all associated with significantly lower rates of cervical screening in both PCTs and individual practices. In contrast, the percentage of female patients aged 50–64 years was associated with higher uptake of cervical screening.

Dr Ji Bang suggested that “a multifaceted approach is needed that includes patients, physicians, individual practices and policy makers,” if cervical screening uptake is to be improved. She also stated that “Performance indicators, such as cervical screening coverage, can be substantially influenced by population factors such as age, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. Using crude performance data to determine the quality of care provided by general practices and PCTs can be misleading. This is an important issue as the UK government has announced this year that the general practice performance data will be made available publicly in the near future.”

The authors concluded that the study illustrated that population and health system characteristics remain important influences on participation in preventative interventions such as cervical screening, even in a health system that offers free of charge access to universal healthcare.


The figure to the left shows the association between the percentage of women aged 50-64 and cervical screening rates in PCTs in England.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

MPH Student Presentations on the NHS Care.Data Programme

As part of a session on primary care data in the Health Informatics module on the Imperial Master of Public Health Programme, I asked students to work in two groups to present arguments for and against the NHS Care.Data programme. Care.Data is an NHS programme that will extract data from the medical records held by general practitioners (GPs) in England. The Care.Data programme takes advantage of the very high level of use of electronic medical records by GPs in England. After extraction, data will be uploaded to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The data will then be used for functions such as health care planning, monitoring disease patterns and research. The programme has been controversial with proponents arguing that the programme will bring many benefits for the NHS and the population of England; and opponents arguing it is a major breach of privacy. You can view the two presentations to help inform you further about these arguments: Arguments fo...
5 comments
Read more

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...
Post a Comment
Read more