IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

General Practitioners knowledge, views and practices regarding cervical cancer screening in Australia. CHERE Working Paper 2010/6

Listed author(s):
  • Stephen Goodall


    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Marion Haas


    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Rosalie Viney


    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

Objective General practitioners (GPs) are the main providers of cervical screening in Australia and are crucial to the successful implementation of the National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP). This study assesses the views of GPs about the value of the Pap smear tests, their knowledge of the current screening policy, awareness of new technologies and concerns of litigation. Design A postal survey was conducted of a random sample of GPs in New South Wales, Australia. Results GPs are generally supportive of NCSP guidelines, specifically 88.5% now agree with the recommended 2 year screening interval. However, half believe the age range should be enlarged to include both older and younger patients. There are notable differences in knowledge and views between male and female GPs. Female GPs tend to support extending the age range and are more familiar with new technologies, whilst male GPs are more concerned about the legal implications of over and under-screening patients. Conclusions While the NCSP is generally well supported by GPs, there are differences in the knowledge and views of male and female GPs. This information provides a contemporary baseline from which to optimise the effectiveness of GPs as providers of cervical screening, improve the rate of appropriate utilisation and successfully implement any future changes to the national screening guidelines.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: First version, 2008
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney in its series Working Papers with number 2010/6.

in new window

Date of creation: Jan 2010
Handle: RePEc:her:chewps:2010/6
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Level 4, 645 Harris Street, Ultimo, NSW 2007

Phone: +61 2 9514 9799
Fax: 61 2 9514 4730
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:her:chewps:2010/6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Liz Chinchen)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.