Evidence suggests that systematic screening and opportunistic screening for AF increase the rate of detection of new cases compared with routine practice .
Although these approaches have comparable effects on the overall AF diagnosis rate , the cost of systematic screening is significantly greater than the cost of opportunistic screening from the perspective of the health service provider .
BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) , the most common arrhythmia in clinical practice , is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality .
Screening for AF in asymptomatic patients has been proposed as a way of reducing the burden of the disease by detecting people who would benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation therapy before the onset of symptoms .
However , for screening to be an effective intervention , it must improve the detection of AF and provide benefit for those detected earlier as a result of screening .
OBJECTIVES This review aims to answer the following questions .Does systematic screening increase the detection of AF compared with routine practice ?
Which combination of screening population , strategy and test is most effective for detecting AF compared with routine practice ?
What safety issues and adverse events may be associated with individual screening programmes ?
How acceptable is the intervention to the target population ?
What costs are associated with systematic screening for AF ?
Gender differences in utilization of colorectal cancer screening
Objectives : To assess the demographic and psychological mediators of gender differences in uptake of flexible sigmoidoscopy ( FS ) screening for colorectal cancer . Setting : A sub sample ( n=5462 ) from a large community trial of FS in the UK . Methods : Men and women r and omized to screening as part of the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Trial were sent a postal question naire assessing  demographic characteristics and  attitudes  to screening six months before their screening appointment . Attendance at screening  was recorded by the screening centres . Results : More men than women  attended screening  ( 73 % versus 67 % ) . The higher male attendance was partially explained by their lower levels of socioeconomic deprivation , higher levels of marital status and lower perceived barriers to screening . Conclusions : Contrary to expectations , men weremore likely than women to attend FS screening .  This was partially explained by socioeconomic and attitudinal differences to screening , but additional research is needed to underst and the key aspects of FS screening that will maximize screening uptake in men and women
Evidence suggests that systematic screening and opportunistic screening for AF increase the rate of detection of new cases compared with routine practice .
Although these approaches have comparable effects on the overall AF diagnosis rate , the cost of systematic screening is significantly greater than the cost of opportunistic screening from the perspective of the health service provider .
BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) , the most common arrhythmia in clinical practice , is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality .
Screening for AF in asymptomatic patients has been proposed as a way of reducing the burden of the disease by detecting people who would benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation therapy before the onset of symptoms .
However , for screening to be an effective intervention , it must improve the detection of AF and provide benefit for those detected earlier as a result of screening .
OBJECTIVES This review aims to answer the following questions .Does systematic screening increase the detection of AF compared with routine practice ?
Which combination of screening population , strategy and test is most effective for detecting AF compared with routine practice ?
What safety issues and adverse events may be associated with individual screening programmes ?
How acceptable is the intervention to the target population ?
What costs are associated with systematic screening for AF ?