FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2144289249> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2144289249 endingPage "37" @default.
• W2144289249 startingPage "5" @default.
• W2144289249 abstract "This article compares cervical cancer screening intensity and cervical cancer mortality trends in the United States and the Netherlands to illustrate the potential of cross-national comparative studies. We discuss the lessons that can be learned from the comparison as well as the challenges in each country to effective and efficient screening.We used nationally representative data sources in the United States and the Netherlands to estimate the number of Pap smears and the cervical cancer mortality rate since 1950. The following questions are addressed: How do differences in intensity of Pap smear use between the countries translate into differences in mortality trends? Can population coverage rates (the proportion of eligible women who had a Pap smear within a specified period) explain the mortality trends better than the total intensity of Pap smear use?Even though three to four times more Pap smears per woman were conducted in the United States than in the Netherlands over a period of three decades, the two countries' mortality trends were quite similar. The five-year coverage rates for women aged thirty to sixty-four were quite comparable at 80 to 90 percent. Because screening in the Netherlands was limited to ages thirty to sixty, screening rates for women under thirty and over sixty were much higher in the United States. These differences had consequences for age-specific mortality trends. The relatively good coverage rate in the Netherlands can be traced back to a nationwide invitation system based on municipal population registries. While both countries followed a policy cycle involving evidence review, surveillance of screening practices and outcomes, clinical guidelines, and reimbursement policies, the components of this cycle were more systematically linked and implemented nationwide in the Netherlands than in the United States. To a large extent, this was facilitated by a public health model of screening in the Netherlands, rather than a medical services model.Cross-country studies like ours are natural experiments that can produce insights not easily obtained from other types of study. The cervical cancer screening system in the Netherlands seems to have been as effective as the U.S. system but used much less screening. Adequate coverage of the female population at risk seems to be of central importance." @default.
• W2144289249 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2144289249 creator A5022789427 @default.
• W2144289249 creator A5061639827 @default.
• W2144289249 creator A5081524520 @default.
• W2144289249 date "2012-03-01" @default.
• W2144289249 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2144289249 title "Cervical Cancer Screening in the United States and the Netherlands: A Tale of Two Countries" @default.
• W2144289249 cites W1208852788 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W1540870416 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W1964524431 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W1964550483 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W1967392853 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W1982881598 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2004582599 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2008422497 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2016554458 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2031239432 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2036898379 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2047145143 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2051258612 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2054415478 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2055260718 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2059867379 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2059978542 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2064695509 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2073274154 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2073927517 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2077498293 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2078249810 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2078990561 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2083954432 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2098782576 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2113922030 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2125058204 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2128028396 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2134162354 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2135450867 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2138018106 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2142284393 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2144019179 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2146339662 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2148173505 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2150798407 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2152093788 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2158104966 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2162133021 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W2165665541 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W4237018011 @default.
• W2144289249 cites W4241179867 @default.
• W2144289249 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00652.x" @default.
• W2144289249 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3385017" @default.
• W2144289249 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22428690" @default.
• W2144289249 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2144289249 type Work @default.
• W2144289249 sameAs 2144289249 @default.
• W2144289249 citedByCount "71" @default.
• W2144289249 countsByYear W21442892492012 @default.
• W2144289249 countsByYear W21442892492013 @default.
• W2144289249 countsByYear W21442892492014 @default.
• W2144289249 countsByYear W21442892492015 @default.
• W2144289249 countsByYear W21442892492016 @default.
• W2144289249 countsByYear W21442892492017 @default.
• W2144289249 countsByYear W21442892492018 @default.
• W2144289249 countsByYear W21442892492019 @default.
• W2144289249 countsByYear W21442892492020 @default.
• W2144289249 countsByYear W21442892492021 @default.
• W2144289249 countsByYear W21442892492022 @default.
• W2144289249 countsByYear W21442892492023 @default.
• W2144289249 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2144289249 hasAuthorship W2144289249A5022789427 @default.
• W2144289249 hasAuthorship W2144289249A5061639827 @default.
• W2144289249 hasAuthorship W2144289249A5081524520 @default.
• W2144289249 hasBestOaLocation W21442892491 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConcept C138816342 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConcept C160050368 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConcept C179755657 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConcept C2778220009 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConcept C2780647465 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConceptScore W2144289249C121608353 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConceptScore W2144289249C126322002 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConceptScore W2144289249C138816342 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConceptScore W2144289249C141071460 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConceptScore W2144289249C144024400 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConceptScore W2144289249C149923435 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConceptScore W2144289249C159110408 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConceptScore W2144289249C160050368 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConceptScore W2144289249C179755657 @default.
• W2144289249 hasConceptScore W2144289249C2778220009 @default.

• next