Literature DB >> 10151964

A cost-effectiveness analysis of cervical cancer screening: health policy implications.

D Gyrd-Hansen1, B Hølund, P Andersen.   

Abstract

This paper presents a framework for comparison of screening programme designs, based on efficiency and cost effectiveness criteria. The design parameters, such as choice of screening interval, which population segments to screen and expected participation rates in the selected population segments, are varied simultaneously. The costs and effects for a range of existing and hypothetical screening programmes against cervical cancer are estimated, using a mathematical simulation model. On the basis of these estimates average costs per life year and marginal costs per life year are calculated for a range of programmes. These calculations result in the definition of a range of inefficient programmes. Moreover, it is illustrated that the cost effectiveness of the efficient screening programmes decreases at an increasing rate as programmes are intensified either by way of shortening the screening interval or extending the target population segment to encompass the very young and/or the very old. The conclusion of this paper is that one should probably not extend screening programmes against cervical cancer beyond screening women in the age group 25-59 years every 4 years. In addition, increasing the participation rate of this group is a more cost effective way of increasing the number of life years gained, rather than extending the target group or decreasing the screening interval.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 10151964     DOI: 10.1016/0168-8510(95)00720-d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Policy        ISSN: 0168-8510            Impact factor:   2.980


  5 in total

Review 1.  Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines.

Authors:  Natasha K Stout; Amy B Knudsen; Chung Yin Kong; Pamela M McMahon; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Cervical cancer screening with AMIGAS: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  David R Lairson; Yu-Chia Chang; Theresa L Byrd; Judith Lee Smith; Maria E Fernandez; Katherine M Wilson
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  The value of improving failures within a cervical cancer screening program: an example from Norway.

Authors:  Emily A Burger; Jane J Kim
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2014-03-20       Impact factor: 7.396

4.  Modeling screening, prevention, and delaying of Alzheimer's disease: an early-stage decision analytic model.

Authors:  Nicolas M Furiak; Robert W Klein; Kristin Kahle-Wrobleski; Eric R Siemers; Eric Sarpong; Timothy M Klein
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2010-04-30       Impact factor: 2.796

5.  Low risk of cervical cancer during a long period after negative screening in the Netherlands.

Authors:  M E van den Akker-van Marle; M van Ballegooijen; J D F Habbema
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2003-04-07       Impact factor: 7.640

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.