Part,  Chapter, Paragraph

  1   II,     5.  1.  1|      establish preventive policies. Screening and case identification
  2   II,     5.  1.  1|          and once detected early by screening via PAP-smear test, these
  3   II,     5.  2.  5|      population-based registers and screening programmes. These approaches
  4   II,     5.  3.  1|            for their implication in screening activity; prostate and stomach
  5   II,     5.  3.  2|        hospices, private hospitals, screening registries, other CRs, primary
  6   II,     5.  3.  2|   Contributing to the evaluation of screening programmes: a number of
  7   II,     5.  3.  2|             efficient evaluation of screening programmes. Others could
  8   II,     5.  3.  2|             or lapsed attendance to screening programmes;~- impact indicators:
  9   II,     5.  3.  2|       prevalent wave of cases after screening introduction; trends in
 10   II,     5.  3.  2|         impact evaluation of cancer screening and cancer treatment programmes:~·
 11   II,     5.  3.  2|       control, including incidence, screening and survival;~· EU-wide
 12   II,     5.  3.  4|          and once detected early by screening via PAP-smear test, these
 13   II,     5.  3.  5|           different introduction of screening programs in various countries
 14   II,     5.  3.  5|            Parkin et al, 2005). The screening effect on the incidence
 15   II,     5.  3.  5|            the years following full screening implementation.~Figure 5.
 16   II,     5.  3.  5|          rates can be influenced by screening programmes. In this case,
 17   II,     5.  3.  5|           programmes. In this case, screening detects cervical lesions
 18   II,     5.  3.  5|          exposure and the organised screening is implemented in the second,
 19   II,     5.  3.  5|           different introduction of screening programmes in various countries.
 20   II,     5.  3.  5|  difficulties to implement cervical screening programs. There have been
 21   II,     5.  3.  5|            there are well-developed screening programs.~ ~Figure 5.3.21.
 22   II,     5.  3.  6|             with effective cervical screening programmes tends to reflect
 23   II,     5.  3.  6|        aggressive cancers for which screening has failed, survival in
 24   II,     5.  3.  6|           are no organised cervical screening programmes. This suggests
 25   II,     5.  3.  6|      infrastructure, prevention and screening programmes, access to diagnostic
 26   II,     5.  3.  7|      over-exposure to sunlight, and screening for cancer are all recommended
 27   II,     5.  3.  7|             secondary prevention or screening)~ ~An organised (or mass)
 28   II,     5.  3.  7|              An organised (or mass) screening programme must be seen as
 29   II,     5.  3.  7|             at an earlier stage via screening test. The overall effectiveness
 30   II,     5.  3.  7|          overall effectiveness of a screening programme is determined
 31   II,     5.  3.  7|         population level. Organised screening programmes are likely to
 32   II,     5.  3.  7|         spontaneous (opportunistic) screening. Opportunistic screening
 33   II,     5.  3.  7|            screening. Opportunistic screening should be discouraged. Mass
 34   II,     5.  3.  7|         should be discouraged. Mass screening programmes can be more thoroughly
 35   II,     5.  3.  7|          easily. For instance, mass screening for neuroblastoma in Japan
 36   II,     5.  3.  7|               Ideally, an organised screening programme should be prepared
 37   II,     5.  3.  7|        eligible persons invited for screening about both the favourable
 38   II,     5.  3.  7|            effects anticipated from screening, so that their choice can
 39   II,     5.  3.  7|          public health effects of a screening programme, and its costs,
 40   II,     5.  3.  7|          carefully predicted before screening is implemented, and the
 41   II,     5.  3.  7|          ultimate purpose of cancer screening is to reduce cancer mortality,
 42   II,     5.  3.  7|       Hakama and De Konig, 2007).~ ~Screening has been shown to reduce
 43   II,     5.  3.  7|           The situation of cervical screening in Eastern Europe is one
 44   II,     5.  3.  7|            that effective organised screening programmes could drastically
 45   II,     5.  3.  7|          organised population-based screening should be promoted for the
 46   II,     5.  3.  7|         implementation of organised screening programmes (European Council,
 47   II,     5.  3.  7|         women aged 25 to 64 for the screening of cervical pre-cancer lesions (
 48   II,     5.  3.  7|             to 69 for breast cancer screening (with 2 or 3 years of interval)
 49   II,     5.  3.  7|         women aged 50 to 74 for the screening of colorectal cancer (with
 50   II,     5.  3.  7|         evidence of the efficacy of screening is often misleading, due
 51   II,     5.  3.  7|         Europe to establish whether screening for prostate cancer or lung
 52   II,     5.  3.  7|             lung or prostate cancer screening.~ ~
 53   II,     5.  3.  7|             for primary prevention, screening, early diagnosis and treatment,
 54   II,     5.  3.  8|       implementing organized cancer screening programmes and investing
 55   II,     5.  3.  9|             December 2003 on cancer screening. htt f (document online,
 56   II,     5.  3.  9|             A halt to neuroblastoma screening in Japan. N Engl J Med 350:
 57   II,     5.  4.  2|          diffusion of opportunistic screening among high risk individuals
 58   II,     5.  4.  2|          cholesterol testing~Annual screening for nephropathy~Annual eye
 59   II,     5.  4.  6|            al (2007), the scope for screening undiagnosed diabetes has
 60   II,     5.  4.  6|             3. Secondary prevention~Screening may be an important weapon
 61   II,     5.  4.  6|             WHO 2003 report defines screening as the process used for
 62   II,     5.  4.  6|           This is one case in which screening on an annual basis should
 63   II,     5.  4.  6|        considering population-based screening, the screening of hyperglycaemia,
 64   II,     5.  4.  6|     population-based screening, the screening of hyperglycaemia, alone
 65   II,     5.  4.  6|  evidence-based disease prevention, screening~· and management founded
 66   II,     5.  4.  7|  health promotion and prevention to screening, diagnosis, treatment and
 67   II,     5.  4.  8|         1995) A computerized health screening and follow-up system in
 68   II,     5.  4.  8|            3):117-37~Waug A (2007): Screening for type 2 diabetes: literature
 69   II,     5.  5.  3|           al, 1998); moreover, also screening procedures and validations
 70   II,     5.  5.  3|    identified studies. Furthermore, screening personnel had different
 71   II,     5.  5.  3|       consequence of false-negative screening results, prevalence may
 72   II,     5.  6.  6|           effect of risk factors on screening strategies. Bone 30:251-
 73   II,     5.  6.  6|         risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis:
 74   II,     5.  7.  1|         2005) may be useful for the screening of CKD; indeed, studies
 75   II,     5.  7.  5|             still uncertain whether screening the general population for
 76   II,     5.  7.  5|      Foundation, 2002 79 /id}. Mass screening through the measurement
 77   II,     5.  7.  5|             treatment of neoplasia, screening for CKD appears advisable.
 78   II,     5.  7.  5|            with chronic infections, screening for CKD could be implemented
 79   II,     5.  7.  6|           development of meaningful screening strategies and prevention
 80   II,     5.  7.  7|               Cost-effectiveness of screening for albuminuria and subsequent
 81   II,     5.  7.  7|        Brancati FL, Powe NR (2003): Screening for proteinuria in US adults:
 82   II,     5.  7.  7|              2005): The validity of screening based on spot morning urine
 83   II,     5.  7.  7|            Holmen J, et al (2006b): Screening strategies for chronic kidney
 84   II,     5.  8.  3|             Authors affirmed that a screening of patients with COPD would
 85   II,     5.  8.  5|         studies have focused on the screening of the population at risk,
 86   II,     5.  8.  5|             by means of spirometric screening (Gorecka et al, 2003). The
 87   II,     5.  8.  5|    large-scale voluntary spirometry screening of the population at high
 88   II,     5.  8.  7|            of COPD in primary care: screening by invitation of smokers
 89   II,     5.  9.  2|       subjects were given the ECRHS screening questionnaire dealing with
 90   II,     5.  9.  2|      subjects who had completed the screening questionnaire, skin prick
 91   II,     5.  9.  4|            Phadiatop as an in-vitro screening test for atopy) was 32.3%,
 92   II,     5.  9.  4|          quantitative assay for the screening of allergy adjuvant activity
 93   II,     5.  9.  4|        gasoline engine PM. They are screening the samples for bioactivity
 94   II,     5. 11.  5|            participate by holding a screening day.~All of the participating
 95   II,     5. 12.  5|           and no diagnostic test or screening program which can be recommended
 96   II,     6.  3.  1|      investigation, or as part of a screening programme. For many of the
 97   II,     6.  3.  3|    collection for STI, e.g. through screening programmes where cost-effective,
 98   II,     6.  3.  3|            preventive campaigns and screening programmes could be exchanged
 99   II,     6.  3.  3|     differences in data collection. Screening studies in Europe have shown
100   II,     8.  2.  1|             and preventative health screening have been identified among
101   II,     8.  2.  1|          2006) note, regular health screening can detect unmet health
102   II,     8.  2.  1|         following a clinical health screening intervention for participants
103   II,     8.  2.  1|      suggest that implementing such screening would reduce health inequalities.~
104   II,     8.  2.  1|           termination of pregnancy. Screening programmes may also prevent
105   II,     8.  2.  1|  disabilities: outcomes of a health screening programme after 1 year.
106   II,     8.  2.  2|     provision. It is important that screening of children for refractive
107   II,     9.  1.  1|           at high risk~ F: Neonatal screening policies~Maternal health~
108   II,     9.  1.  2|          financial cost of prenatal screening in the population and its
109   II,     9.  1.  2|          diagnosed through neonatal screening may be included in congenital
110   II,     9.  1.  2|          births. Differing prenatal screening policies and practices,
111   II,     9.  1.  2|            differences in uptake of screening and diagnosis due to cultural
112   II,     9.  1.  2|      Syndrome, 1992-2004~ ~Prenatal screening for Down Syndrome has resulted
113   II,     9.  1.  2|         practice regarding prenatal screening and TOPFA, as well as maternal
114   II,     9.  1.  2|            developments.~ ~Prenatal screening and diagnosis~ ~The two
115   II,     9.  1.  2|          two main types of prenatal screening are biochemical screening
116   II,     9.  1.  2|           screening are biochemical screening and ultrasound scanning
117   II,     9.  1.  2|           is increasingly used, but screening developments are unevenly
118   II,     9.  1.  2|             Europe (EUROCAT, 2005). Screening policies vary between European
119   II,     9.  1.  2|        design and implementation of screening, or from differences in
120   II,     9.  1.  2|         effect.~ ~However, prenatal screening also presents to the healthcare
121   II,     9.  1.  2|         rare anomalies. Inevitably, screening involves both false positives
122   II,     9.  1.  2|          this situation.~ ~Prenatal screening and diagnosis have seen
123   II,     9.  1.  2|         Variation in the quality of screening services within Europe requires
124   II,     9.  1.  2|            Special Report: Prenatal Screening Policies in Europe". EUROCAT
125   II,     9.  1.  2|     Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns:
126   II,     9.  3.  1|       England have announced that a screening programme for men aged 65
127   II,     9.  3.  1|              2007): Prostate Cancer Screening Decreases the Absolute Risk
128   II,     9.  3.  1|      Forciea, MA Owens, DK (2008). "Screening for Osteoporosis in Men:
129   II,     9.  3.  2|           2004). Improved antenatal screening techniques bring up the
130   II,     9.  4.  3|            differences in access to screening (Qinn et al, 2001).~ ~Communicable
131   II,     9.  5.  3|     lifestyle choices and access to screening and treatment, may adversely
132   II,     9.  5.  4|          Lisbon Nov 2007), National Screening England Chlamydia (2007)
133   II,     9.  5.  4|      prostate cancer and colorectal screening guidelines (COM (2003) 0230,
134   II,     9.  5.  4|            Recommendation on cancer screening).~ ~Steps to improve men’
135  III,    10.  2.  1| cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening and brief interventions
136  III,    10.  2.  1|            is intended for use as a screening tool for preliminary exposure
137  III,    10.  2.  4|              the shift from carrier screening to a screening based on
138  III,    10.  2.  4|         from carrier screening to a screening based on individual genomic
139  III,    10.  2.  4|            population (e.g. newborn screening, breast cancer screening,
140  III,    10.  2.  4|            screening, breast cancer screening, HIV screening, specific
141  III,    10.  2.  4|        breast cancer screening, HIV screening, specific screening options
142  III,    10.  2.  4|             HIV screening, specific screening options for migrants, carrier
143  III,    10.  2.  4|       options for migrants, carrier screening). At present we already
144  III,    10.  4.  2|        enable the collection of all screening data from a sample, with
145   IV,    11.  1.  5|     mammography and cervical cancer screening, waiting time for femur
146   IV,    11.  1.  5|          cancer and cervical cancer screening, data are so far available
147   IV,    11.  1.  5|          less). For cervical cancer screening, rates are lower than for
148   IV,    11.  1.  5|             to increase the rate of screening among the target populations (
149   IV,    11.  2.  2|            the above limitations is screening. In terms of mental health,
150   IV,    11.  4    |           strokePopulation based screening programmes to reduce the
151   IV,    11.  6.  5|       Holland WW, Stewart S (2005): Screening in disease prevention: what
152   IV,    11.  6.  5|            Stewart S et al. (2006): Screening in Europe: A policy brief.
153   IV,    12.  1    |            detection and systematic screening, quality of care, and research.~
154   IV,    12.  2    |      population-based registers and screening programmes. These approaches
155   IV,    12.  2    |            for improved prevention, screening and treatment of the disease
156   IV,    12.  2    |          organised population-based screening should be promoted for the
157   IV,    12.  2    |         implementation of organised screening programmes (European Council,
158   IV,    12.  2    |         women between 20-30 for the screening of cervical pre-cancer lesions (
159   IV,    12.  2    |             to 69 for breast cancer screening (with 2 or 3 years of interval)
160   IV,    12.  2    |         women aged 50 to 74 for the screening of colorectal cancer (with
161   IV,    12.  2    |          ultimate purpose of cancer screening is to reduce cancer mortality,
162   IV,    12.  2    |             present.~ ~The case for screening for undiagnosed diabetes
163   IV,    12.  2    |   over-emphasised. The rationale of screening is to detect a disease or
164   IV,    12.  2    |             WHO 2003 report defines screening as the process of identifying
165   IV,    12.  2    | cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening and brief interventions
166   IV,    12. 10    |      Environment Act (Adjustment of screening visits, consultancy services
167   IV,    12. 10    |             for individuals; health screening is free of charge, regularly,
168   IV,    12. 10    |           of the population through screening, treatment and rehabilitation
169   IV,    12. 10    |              food/water/air safety, screening and emergency planning.~ ~
170   IV,    12. 10    |            care from prevention and screening through to treatment services,
171   IV,    12. 10    |            cardiovascular diseases, screening for risk factors, including
172   IV,    12. 10    |     possibilities for all to smoke.~Screening programmes~As part of the
173   IV,    12. 10    |        issued on 21 December 2006 a Screening Decree (1339/2006) which
174   IV,    12. 10    |        effectiveness of the various screening methodologies and of screening
175   IV,    12. 10    |      screening methodologies and of screening programmes based on them.
176   IV,    12. 10    |       issues equal criteria for all screening programmes issued as part
177   IV,    12. 10    |         work in Finland.~ ~National screening programmes include screening
178   IV,    12. 10    |        screening programmes include screening for breast cancer, cervical
179   IV,    12. 10    |          cervical cancer and foetal screening programmes, including screening
180   IV,    12. 10    |     screening programmes, including screening for chromosomal and structural
181   IV,    12. 10    |            It expands breast cancer screening for the age groups of 60
182   IV,    12. 10    |          nature and scope of foetal screening programmes. The screening
183   IV,    12. 10    |           screening programmes. The screening programmes will be regularly
184   IV,    12. 10    |          Cancer and Cervical Cancer Screening Programmes~Psychosocial
185   IV,    13.  6.  2|           advisory, preventive, and screening services for school children
186   IV,    13.  6.  2|            school nurse, or doctor, screening children on a regular basis
187   IV,    13.  6.  2|    difficult to define and measure. Screening services and immunisation,