Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 12, 2026

14:14
Adaptation of Semiautomated Circulating Tumor Cell (CTC) Assays for Clinical and Preclinical Research Applications
Published on: February 28, 2014
A cervical cytology campaign using a computerised age-sex register
Summary
A cervical screening campaign achieved 80.7% response rate, with posters proving most effective publicity. Further analysis is needed to determine if the achieved coverage justifies the campaign costs.
Area of Science:
- Public Health
- Preventive Medicine
- Health Services Research
Background:
- Cervical cancer screening is crucial for early detection and prevention.
- Effective invitation strategies and publicity are key to maximizing participation in screening programs.
- Health centers play a vital role in delivering community-based screening initiatives.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of a targeted cervical screening campaign.
- To assess response rates, attendance, and refusal rates for cervical smears.
- To compare the impact of different publicity methods on screening uptake.
Main Methods:
- Utilized a computerized age-sex register to invite women aged 25-64 for cervical smears.
- Implemented a three-month screening campaign with publicity measures including posters, newspaper ads, and handbills.
- Calculated campaign costs per smear taken and analyzed response and attendance data.
Main Results:
- 80.7% of invited women responded to the invitation.
- 11.5% of respondents refused the test, and 7.6% of acceptors failed to attend.
- Posters were identified as the most effective publicity method; the campaign cost approximately £2.71 per smear.
- Over 70% of the target population underwent screening during the campaign or preceding three years.
Conclusions:
- The cervical screening campaign demonstrated a high response rate and identified effective publicity channels.
- While over 70% coverage was achieved, the cost-effectiveness remains undetermined due to data limitations.
- Further research is recommended to validate the cost-benefit of such screening initiatives.

