Literature DB >> 11329841

Time costs associated with cervical cancer screening.

T I Shireman1, J Tsevat, S J Goldie.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Time costs borne by women when undergoing cervical cancer screening have rarely been elucidated, although such costs may pose substantial barriers to care. The purpose of this project was to quantify the opportunity costs associated with cervical cancer screening in young women attending Planned Parenthood Clinics.
METHODS: We conducted a self-report survey of 105 women from six clinics to measure travel, waiting, and exam times associated with cervical cancer screening. Respondents recorded their time of arrival and departure, length of time in the waiting room, age, income level, and hours per week they worked outside of the home. Time costs were valued three ways: through self-reported hourly wage, age- and gender-adjusted minimum earnings, and national age- and gender-adjusted hourly wages.
RESULTS: Respondents were on average 24 years old, worked 29 hours per week outside the home, and earned less than $20,000 per year. Mean time for one-way travel was 18.7 minutes; waiting room time was 16.9 minutes; and exam time was 50.8 minutes. Time costs were estimated to be $14.08 per visit based upon the self-reported hourly wage; $16.46 per visit based upon age- and gender-adjusted minimum earnings; and $19.63 per visit based upon age- and gender-adjusted national wage rates.
CONCLUSIONS: Time costs associated with cervical cancer screening represent an important opportunity cost and should be considered in studies attempting to identify barriers to screening adherence. Our results indicate that time costs accounted for up to 25% of cervical cancer screening costs. Time costs should be identified, measured, valued, and included in cost-effectiveness analyses of cervical cancer screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11329841     DOI: 10.1017/s0266462301104137

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care        ISSN: 0266-4623            Impact factor:   2.188


  17 in total

1.  Excess Cost of Cervical Cancer Screening Beyond Recommended Screening Ages or After Hysterectomy in a Single Institution.

Authors:  Deanna Teoh; Gretchen Hultman; McKenzie DeKam; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Levi S Downs; Melissa A Geller; Chap Le; Genevieve Melton; Shalini Kulasingam
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.925

2.  Measuring time costs in interventions designed to reduce behavior problems among children and youth.

Authors:  E Michael Foster; Deborah Johnson-Shelton; Ted K Taylor
Journal:  Am J Community Psychol       Date:  2007-09

3.  Revisiting the cost-effectiveness of the COMBINE study for alcohol dependent patients: the patient perspective.

Authors:  Laura J Dunlap; Gary A Zarkin; Jeremy W Bray; Michael Mills; Daniel R Kivlahan; James R McKay; Patricia Latham; J Scott Tonigan
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Accuracy and cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening by high-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples.

Authors:  Akhila Balasubramanian; Shalini L Kulasingam; Atar Baer; James P Hughes; Evan R Myers; Constance Mao; Nancy B Kiviat; Laura A Koutsky
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.925

Review 5.  Assessing the annual economic burden of preventing and treating anogenital human papillomavirus-related disease in the US: analytic framework and review of the literature.

Authors:  Ralph P Insinga; Erik J Dasbach; Elamin H Elbasha
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Race and ethnic disparities in cervical cancer screening in a safety-net system.

Authors:  Gertrude A Owusu; Susan Brown Eve; Cynthia M Cready; Kenneth Koelln; Fernando Trevino; Ximena Urrutia-Rojas; Joanne Baumer
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2005-09

7.  Estimated Quality of Life and Economic Outcomes Associated With 12 Cervical Cancer Screening Strategies: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  George F Sawaya; Erinn Sanstead; Fernando Alarid-Escudero; Karen Smith-McCune; Steven E Gregorich; Michael J Silverberg; Wendy Leyden; Megan J Huchko; Miriam Kuppermann; Shalini Kulasingam
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 21.873

8.  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

9.  Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical cancer screening in women older than 30 years in the United States.

Authors:  Jane J Kim; Jesse Ortendahl; Sue J Goldie
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-10-20       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Inefficiencies and High-Value Improvements in U.S. Cervical Cancer Screening Practice: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Jane J Kim; Nicole G Campos; Stephen Sy; Emily A Burger; Jack Cuzick; Philip E Castle; William C Hunt; Alan Waxman; Cosette M Wheeler
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.