Literature DB >> 10572841

Estimating time and travel costs incurred in clinic based screening: flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer.

E Frew1, J L Wolstenholme, W Atkin, D K Whynes.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To identify the characteristics of mode of travel to screening clinics; to estimate the time and travel costs incurred in attending; to investigate whether such costs are likely to bias screening compliance.
SETTING: Twelve centres in the trial of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer, drawn from across Great Britain.
METHOD: Analysis of 3525 questionnaires completed by screening subjects while attending clinics. Information supplied included sociodemographic characteristics, modes of travel, expenses, activities foregone owing to attendance, and details of companions.
RESULTS: More than 80% of subjects arrived at the clinics by car, and about two thirds were accompanied. On average, the clinic visit involved a 14.4 mile (22.8 km) round trip, requiring 130 minutes. Mean travel costs amounted to 6.10 Pounds per subject. The mean gross direct non-medical and indirect cost per subject amounted to 16.90 Pounds, and the mean overall gross cost per attendance was 22.40 Pounds. Compared with the Great Britain population as a whole, non-manual classes were more strongly represented, and the self employed less strongly represented, among the attendees.
CONCLUSIONS: In relation to direct medical costs, the time and travel costs of clinic based screening can be substantial, may influence the overall cost effectiveness of a screening programme, and may deter potential subjects from attending.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10572841     DOI: 10.1136/jms.6.3.119

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  19 in total

1.  Healthcare and patient costs of a proactive chlamydia screening programme: the Chlamydia Screening Studies project.

Authors:  Suzanne Robinson; Tracy Roberts; Pelham Barton; Stirling Bryan; John Macleod; Anne McCarthy; Matthias Egger; Emma Sanford; Nicola Low
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2007-01-17       Impact factor: 3.519

2.  Patients and caregivers costs for colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer screening: Experience of low-income individuals undergoing free colonoscopies.

Authors:  Sonja Hoover; Sujha Subramanian; Florence K L Tangka; Maggie Cole-Beebe; Amy Sun; Cheryl L Kramer; Gina Pacillio
Journal:  Eval Program Plann       Date:  2017-01-07

3.  Weight management for adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Rationale and design for an 18month randomized trial.

Authors:  J E Donnelly; L T Ptomey; J R Goetz; D K Sullivan; C A Gibson; J L Greene; R H Lee; M S Mayo; J J Honas; R A Washburn
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 2.226

4.  Low adherence to colonoscopy in the screening of first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Luis Bujanda; Cristina Sarasqueta; Leire Zubiaurre; Angel Cosme; Carmen Muñoz; Araceli Sánchez; Cristina Martín; Llucia Tito; Virginia Piñol; Antoni Castells; Xavier Llor; Rosa M Xicola; Elisenda Pons; Juan Clofent; María L de Castro; Jaime Cuquerella; Enrique Medina; Ana Gutierrez; Juan I Arenas; Rodrigo Jover
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2007-03-30       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  Patient time requirements for anticoagulation therapy with warfarin.

Authors:  Daniel E Jonas; Betsy Bryant Shilliday; W Russell Laundon; Michael Pignone
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009-09-22       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Remote delivery of weight management for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Rationale and design for a 24 month randomized trial.

Authors:  Lauren T Ptomey; Richard A Washburn; Matthew S Mayo; J Leon Greene; Robert H Lee; Amanda N Szabo-Reed; Jeffery J Honas; Joseph R Sherman; Joseph E Donnelly
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2018-08-24       Impact factor: 2.226

7.  Weight management for adults with mobility related disabilities: Rationale and design for an 18-month randomized trial.

Authors:  Richard A Washburn; Lauren T Ptomey; Anna M Gorczyca; Patricia R Smith; Matthew S Mayo; Robert Lee; Joseph E Donnelly
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2020-08-06       Impact factor: 2.226

8.  Cost effectiveness analysis of intensive versus conventional follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Andrew G Renehan; Sarah T O'Dwyer; David K Whynes
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-01-10

9.  Willingness-to-pay to avoid the time spent and discomfort associated with screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Daniel E Jonas; Louise B Russell; Jon Chou; Michael Pignone
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.046

10.  Empirical evidence of the continuing improvement in cost efficiency of an endoscopic surveillance programme for gastric cancer in Singapore from 2004 to 2010.

Authors:  Hui Jun Zhou; Shu Chuen Li; Nasheen Naidoo; Feng Zhu; Khay Guan Yeoh
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.