Do centralised skin screening clinics increase participation in melanoma screening (Australia)?

Janda, Monika, Lowe, John B., Elwood, Mark, Ring, Ian T., Youl, Philippa H. and Aitken, Joanne F. (2006) Do centralised skin screening clinics increase participation in melanoma screening (Australia)?. Cancer Causes & Control, 17 2: 161-168. doi:10.1007/s10552-005-0419-y

Author Janda, Monika
Lowe, John B.
Elwood, Mark
Ring, Ian T.
Youl, Philippa H.
Aitken, Joanne F.
Title Do centralised skin screening clinics increase participation in melanoma screening (Australia)?
Journal name Cancer Causes & Control   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0957-5243
Publication date 2006-03
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1007/s10552-005-0419-y
Volume 17
Issue 2
Start page 161
End page 168
Total pages 8
Editor G. Colditz
Place of publication Dordrecht, The Netherland
Publisher Springer
Collection year 2006
Language eng
Subject C1
730108 Cancer and related disorders
321202 Epidemiology
Formatted abstract
Objective To compare during the first 12 months of a 3-year randomised community-based trial of population screening for melanoma three methods of screening delivery: skin screening within day-to-day primary care (Group A); screening in dedicated skin screening clinics either organised privately by local physicians (Group B); or organised centrally with participants referred back to their physicians for definitive diagnosis and management (Group C).

Methods The trial involved 18 regional communities in Queensland, Australia. Of the nine communities randomised to the intervention group, three communities were allocated to each of the Groups A, B or C. All intervention communities received a community education programme and an education and support programme for primary care physicians. The self-reported prevalence of clinical skin examination was assessed by surveying 3,110 residents (66.9% participation rate) aged ≥30 years by telephone at baseline, and 14,060 residents (70.9% participation rate) by self-administered mailed questionnaire at 12-month follow-up.

Results At baseline the prevalence of skin screening did not differ between intervention and control communities. At 12-month follow-up, participants within intervention communities reported skin screening significantly more frequently (20.9% versus 10.9%; p<0.001). Within intervention communities, the prevalence of clinical skin examinations in Group A was similar to that of control communities (12.6% and 10.9%; p = 0.33). Communities in Group B (16.5%; p = 0.001) and Group C (27.1%; p<0.001) reported significantly higher prevalence of clinical examinations than the control group.

Conclusions The provision of centrally organised skin screening clinics significantly increases skin screening rates and may have relevance for future melanoma control programmes.

Keyword Screening
Randomised-controlled Trial
Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
Q-Index Code C1

Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 8 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 10 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 15 Aug 2007, 08:38:29 EST