Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(3)
In Japan, low screening coverage has been attributed partly to poor knowledge and education about cervical cancer and screening.
High population turnover is commonly thought to contribute to low screening coverage, but this is not supported by analysis of coverage and total population turnover at a PCT level (Bailey and Livingston, 2007).
Districts with atypically low screening coverage displayed distinct correlation patterns between their population characteristics, in particular with regard to deprivation: these districts may benefit from the development of new approaches to target the low-attending communities living within their boundaries.
Similar(57)
*unpublished n/a not available The lowest screening coverage of 66.7% was reported in Oman and is largely attributable to the inception of a nation-wide screening programme rather than a pilot study.
Deprivation is a significant factor in explaining low breast screening coverage, but only contributes around 13% of the variation in coverage at Primary Care Trust (PCT) level.
PKU patients may therefore not be detected at an early age in the regions with lower coverage rates, which could explain why all the PKU patients were from Anhui and Jiangxi Provinces, which have low newborn screening coverage rates.
When compared to other Latin American countries, El Salvador has the lowest reported screening coverage.
At 19 %, El Salvador has the lowest reported screening coverage of all Latin American countries.
This is the first study to characterise English districts with atypically high or low cervical or breast screening coverage using a risk adjustment approach.
The aim of this analysis was to identify and characterise districts that displayed atypically high or low cervical or breast screening coverage given population and general practice risk factors at district level.
Patients aged 25 29 years were included because many are diagnosed via symptomatic presentation 13 (screening coverage is low (∼60%).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com