<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
 <record>
  <leader>     caa a22        4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">397577583</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="003">CHVBK</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20180308164900.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="007">cr unu---uuuuu</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">161202e199609  xx      s     000 0 eng  </controlfield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a024517</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">(NATIONALLICENCE)oxford-10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a024517</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="0" ind2="4">
   <subfield code="a">The current state of screening in general practice</subfield>
   <subfield code="h">[Elektronische Daten]</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">[P.-L. Li, S. Logan]</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Background The aim of this study was to describe the range of screening services offered by general practitioners (GPs). Methods A postal questionnaire survey was sent to a random sample of one in four GPs in general practices within the geographical boundaries of North (East) Thames Region. The questionnaire was divided into five sections, the first covering practice details and the other four covering screening directed at different groups of patients. Each GP in the sample was sent the general section and two other sections. Results The overall response rate was 67⋅7 per cent. There was inter-practitioner variability in screening practice in all four patient groups. A number of GPs did not undertake all screening tests required by the national GP contract or recommended by national or local policy, and some had introduced screening programmes of uncertain benefit. There was little evidence of systematic audit of screening programmes. Differences in screening provision were observed between GPs in Greater London and non-metropolitan areas, but there was little difference between single-handed and group practices, or between fundholding and non-fundholding GPs, except in the provision of child health surveillance. Conclusion Primary care teams carry out screening for a wide range of conditions but the lack of uniformity of practice and of evaluation makes it unclear to what extent the population benefits from these activities. The importance of national and international screening policies is obvious, but there is a need to go beyond publication and dissemination of guidelines to develop implementation strategies which take account of the variations in the way GPs actually address screening in their practices.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">© Oxford University Press</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Articles</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">screening</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">general practice</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">screening policies</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Li</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">P.-L</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Department of Public Health Medicine Camden &amp; Islington District Health Authority, Insull Wing, 110 Hampstead Road, London NW1 2LJ</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Logan</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">S.</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Child Health 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N 1EH</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="t">Journal of Public Health</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Oxford University Press</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">18/3(1996-09), 350-356</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">1741-3842</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">18:3&lt;350</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">1996</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">18</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">pubmed</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a024517</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="908" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="D">1</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">research-article</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">jats</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">856</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">40</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a024517</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">700</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Li</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">P.-L</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Department of Public Health Medicine Camden &amp; Islington District Health Authority, Insull Wing, 110 Hampstead Road, London NW1 2LJ</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">700</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Logan</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">S.</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Child Health 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N 1EH</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">773</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">0-</subfield>
   <subfield code="t">Journal of Public Health</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Oxford University Press</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">18/3(1996-09), 350-356</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">1741-3842</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">18:3&lt;350</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">1996</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">18</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">pubmed</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="900" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Metadata rights reserved</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">CC BY-NC-4.0</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="898" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">BK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">XK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">XK010000</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="949" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="F">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">NL-oxford</subfield>
  </datafield>
 </record>
</collection>
