BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of screening women for breast cancer; however, the cost-effectiveness of strategies to motivate women to receive breast cancer screening has been less well studied. METHODS: A total of 196 women, aged 50 to 74, who were enrolled in a public health hospital clinic, were noncompliant with mammography screening, and had at least one routine clinic appointment during the study period (15 months) were entered into a randomized, controlled trial of a motivational intervention to increase mammography rates. Costs were captured via a modified Delphi technique, accounting records, sampling of staff time logs, and an estimation of miscellaneous and overhead costs. Summary costs were calculated using Excel spread sheets. RESULTS: Overall, 49% of women who received the intervention had a mammogram within 8 weeks of an index visit compared with 22% of control women. Calculation of the cost-effectiveness of the project showed an additional cost of $151 (1996 U.S.$) for each woman receiving the intervention and $559 for each additional woman motivated to receive a mammogram. CONCLUSIONS: Cost tracking and cost-effectiveness analysis can be done when intervening in a clinical setting, thereby allowing clinics to make informed decisions about implementing programs to increase motivation of their patients to receive screening.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of screening women for breast cancer; however, the cost-effectiveness of strategies to motivate women to receive breast cancer screening has been less well studied. METHODS: A total of 196 women, aged 50 to 74, who were enrolled in a public health hospital clinic, were noncompliant with mammography screening, and had at least one routine clinic appointment during the study period (15 months) were entered into a randomized, controlled trial of a motivational intervention to increase mammography rates. Costs were captured via a modified Delphi technique, accounting records, sampling of staff time logs, and an estimation of miscellaneous and overhead costs. Summary costs were calculated using Excel spread sheets. RESULTS: Overall, 49% of women who received the intervention had a mammogram within 8 weeks of an index visit compared with 22% of control women. Calculation of the cost-effectiveness of the project showed an additional cost of $151 (1996 U.S.$) for each woman receiving the intervention and $559 for each additional woman motivated to receive a mammogram. CONCLUSIONS: Cost tracking and cost-effectiveness analysis can be done when intervening in a clinical setting, thereby allowing clinics to make informed decisions about implementing programs to increase motivation of their patients to receive screening.
Authors: Yamilé Molina; Catherine M Pichardo; Donald L Patrick; Scott D Ramsey; Sonia Bishop; Shirley A A Beresford; Gloria D Coronado Journal: J Health Dispar Res Pract Date: 2018
Authors: Richard G Roetzheim; Lisa K Christman; Paul B Jacobsen; Alan B Cantor; Jennifer Schroeder; Rania Abdulla; Seft Hunter; Thomas N Chirikos; Jeffrey P Krischer Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Kishore Khankari; Mickey Eder; Chandra Y Osborn; Gregory Makoul; Marla Clayman; Silvia Skripkauskas; Linda Diamond-Shapiro; Dan Makundan; Michael S Wolf Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-07-26 Impact factor: 5.128