Evaluating the Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening Invitation Letters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an invitation letter on cervical screening participation among unscreened women 30 to 69 years of age. METHODS: A cluster randomized trial design was used in which unscreened women (n=31,452) were randomized by the forward sortation area (FSA) of their postal code to an intervention group that was sent an invitation letter (n=17,068) or a group that was not sent an invitation letter (n=14,384). RESULTS: Six months after the letters were mailed, 1,010 women in the intervention group (5.92%) and 441 women in the control group (3.06%) had a Pap test. After adjusting for variables that have previously shown to influence screening participation, women who were sent an invitation letter were significantly more likely to have had a Pap test in the next 6 months compared with women who were not sent an invitation letter (odds ratio [OR]=2.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.09-3.35, p<0.001). Overall, the effectiveness of the invitation letter improved with increasing age (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Sending invitation letters increased cervical screening participation but because the overall effect was small, additional strategies that remove barriers to screening for unscreened women are also necessary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".