View report page

97
proportion of referrals through the family doctor where the
permanent clinics are concerned is in sharp contrast to the very
small percentage (2%) of referrals from this source to the mobile
unit.
Of the women attending the mobile unit, some 83% said that
their visit was the result of seeing a leaflet, reading a press
item, or seeing the unit on site. 46% gave leaflets as their main
reason for coming and it would appear that the street handout (33%)
was more successful than the door-to-door distribution (13%).
Looking at the attendance rate it can be said that for each hundred
leaflets distributed, one person attended the unit and similar
results were achieved at the static clinics in the control areas.
The original estimate of the cost of the campaign was £1,700
but in fact the expenditure proved to be in the region of £1,000,
giving a cost per woman examined of about £2.70. The comparable
cost of each examination in one of our regular clinics during the
first half of the 1972/73 financial year was £1.70.
Looking at the overall results of the mobile campaign, it must
be stated that attendances at the mobile unit were lower than had
been hoped - and hence the higher cost of the mobile unit examination
- and there appear to have been two main reasons for this. In
the first place, adverse weather conditions were experienced on
several days. Secondly, and more importantly, it was found that
the attendances were low when the mobile unit first started
operation at each location and tended to increase during the
period of each visit. This indicates that a period longer than one
week in a particular location probably is necessary before the
unit becomes fully effective.
The long-term effect that the mobile unit will have upon
attendances at permanent clinics cannot be judged until a
reasonable period of time has elapsed. In the period of four
months during and since the visit of the mobile unit, the average
number of women attending permanent clinics has been 50 a week,
as compared with an average weekly attendance of 43 in the three
months preceding the visit. The effect at this stage can only be
described as marginal and this is borne out by the experience of
other London Boroughs where the unit has been used.
Undoubtedly the exercise has been valuable in highlighting
the need to concentrate publicity efforts in relation to the
waiting room of the family doctor where posters can be exhibited
and leaflets displayed; and to reinforce the efforts of general