Acta Med. 2002, 45: 161-166
https://doi.org/10.14712/18059694.2019.74
Some Recruitment Aspects of Population Photoscreening of Amblyogenic Factors at Children Younger One Year
References
1. P, Irwing L, Turnbull D. Evaluating the impact of a promotional campaign for screening mammography: who attends? Aust J Publ Health 1992; 16(1):66–71.
<https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.1992.tb00027.x>
2. American Academy of Ophthalmology, Infant and Children’s Eye Care. A Statement by the American Academy of Ophthalmology to Select Panel for the Promotion of Child Health, San Francisco: American Academy of Ophthalmology, 1980.
3. B, Crosta B, Lotti M et al. Flexible sigmoidoscopy as a colorectal cancer screening test in the general population: recruitment phase results of a randomized controlled trial in Lombardia, Italy. Chir Ital 2000; 25(4):279–92.
4. AR, de Köning HJ, Absez P, Schreck M. Psychosocial predictors offirst attendance for organised mammography screening. J Med Screen 1999; 6(2):82–8.
<https://doi.org/10.1136/jms.6.2.82>
5. J, Braddick OJ, Durden K, Warson PG, Atkinson S. Screening for refractive errors in 6–9 month old infants by photorefraction. Br J Ophthalmol 1984; 68:105–12.
<https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.68.2.105>
<PubMed>
6. WR, Braddick O. Eccentric photorefraction: Optical analysis and empirical measures. Am J Optom Physiol Optics 1985; 62(9):614–20.
<https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-198509000-00006>
7. JE, Sanson-Fischer RW, Redman S, Dickinson JA, Halpin S. Effectiveness of three community based strategies to promote screening for cervical cancer. J Med Screen 1994; 1(3):150–8.
<https://doi.org/10.1177/096914139400100304>
8. K, Redman S, Forbes J, Sanson-Fisher R, Callaghan T. Two sequential randomized trial of community participation to recruit women for mammographic screening. Prev Med 1996; 25(2):126–34.
<https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.1996.0038>
9. LA, Leakey TA, Rimer BK, Wolfe P, Woodworth MA, Warn RB. Effectiveness of a telephone outcall intervention to promote screening mammography among low-income women. Prev Med 1998; 27(5Pt2):S39–49.
<https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.1998.0395>
10. MM, Cheok F, Ingham HM. The effectiveness of invitations from general practitioners in recruiting women to mammographic screening. Med J Aust 1991; 155(9):623–5.
11. L, Ore L, Neter E, Shifroni G, Rennert G. The gradient in mammography screening behaviour: a lyfestile marker. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48(9):1281–90.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00434-1>
12. C, Launoz G, Thezee Y et al. Participants’ characteristics in a French colorectal cancer mass screening campain. Prev Med 1995; 24(5):490–502.
<https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.1995.1079>
13. SF, Jolley DJ, Livingston PM, Reading D, Cockburn J, Flint-Richter D. Effectiveness, cost, and cost-effectiveness of recruitment strategies for a mammographic screening programm to detect breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992; 84(11):855–63.
<https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/84.11.855>
14. T, Wyke S, McEwen J, Macintyre S, Kelly M. Uptake for cervical screening in general practice: effect of practice organisation, structure and deprivation. J Med Screen 1996; 3(1):35–9.
<https://doi.org/10.1177/096914139600300109>
15. K. A simple method for screening of children with strabismus, anisometropia or ametropia by simultaneous photography of the corneal and fundus reflexes. Acta Ophthalmol (Kbl.) 1979; 57:161–71.
<https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.1979.tb00481.x>
16. GR. Detection, prevention, and rehabilitation of amblyopia. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2000; 11(5):306–9.
<https://doi.org/10.1097/00055735-200010000-00003>
17. SJ, McCarty CA, Sicary C et al. Recruirment methods for community-based screening for diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2000; 7(3):209–18.
<https://doi.org/10.1076/0928-6586(200009)731-VFT209>
18. CM, Curry SJ, Taplin S, Anderman C, Grothaus L. Exploring environmental bariers to participation in mammography screening in an HMO. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1993; 2(6):599–605.
19. KL, Chapman JA, Thurston WE, Milligan CD. Promotion of breast cancer screening in communities: a research agenda. Cancer Prev Control 1997; 1(3):213–21.
20. L, Hagoel L, Shifroni G, Rennert G. Compliance with mammography screening in Israeli women: the impact of a pre-scheduled appointment and of the letter style. Isr J Med Sci 1997; 33(2):103–11.
21. Report on the national Eye Institute’s Visual Acuity Impairment Survey Pilot Study. Washingtn DC: Office of Biometry and Epidemilogy, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health. Public Health Service, Dept of Health and Human Services, 1984.
22. BK, Schildkraut JM, Lerman C, Lin TH., Audrain J. Participation in a women’s breast cancer risk counselling trial. Who participates? Who declines? High Risk Breast Cancer Consorsium. Cancer 1996; 77(11):2348–55.
<https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960601)77:11<2348::AID-CNCR25>3.0.CO;2-W>
23. J. Screening in general practice and primary care. Br Med Bull 1998; 54(4):961–82.
<https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bmb.a011741>
24. E, Stringer J, Cliver S, Goldenberg R, Goepfert A. Active refusal increases human imunodeficiency virus screening in urban prenatal clinic system. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97(4Suppl1):58.
25. D, Irwing L. Ineffective recruitment strategies for screening mammography: letterbox drops and invitations for friends. Aust J Publ Health 1992; 16(1):79–81.
<https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.1992.tb00029.x>
26. Vision Research, A National Plan: 1999–2003, A Report of the National Advisory Eye Council, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington: National Institutes of Health, NIH Publication 1998, No. 98.4120,97.
