Literature DB >> 15316909

Examining the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening promotion.

M Robyn Andersen1, Nicole Urban, Scott Ramsey, Peter A Briss.   

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) can help to quantify the contribution of the promotion of a screening program to increased participation in screening. The cost-effectiveness (C/E) of screening promotion depends in large part on the endpoints of interest. At the most fundamental level, the C/E of a strategy for promoting screening would focus on the attendance rate, or cost per person screened, and the C/E would be influenced by the costs of promotion, as well as by the size and responsiveness of the target population. In addition, the costs of screening promotion (measured as the cost per additional participant in screening) can be included in a CEA estimate of the screening technology. In this case, depending on the efficacy of the screening test and the costs and influence of the promotion, the C/E of screening may improve or become poorer. In the current study, the authors reviewed the literature on the C/E of cancer screening promotion. The following lessons were learned regarding the C/E of screening and its promotion: 1) high-quality information on the C/E of screening is increasingly available; 2) cost-effective promotion of screening is dependent on cost-effective screening strategies; 3) quality-of-life effects may be important in assessing the overall C/E of screening programs; 4) research efforts aimed at identifying cost-effective approaches to screening promotion are useful but sparse; 5) C/E studies should be better incorporated into well designed effectiveness research efforts; 6) variations in C/E according to intervention characteristics, population characteristics, and context should be evaluated in greater depth; 7) the long-term effects of screening promotion are critical to assessing C/E; 8) the effects of promotion on costs of screening must be better understood; and 9) CEA must be interpreted in light of other information. The authors showed that CEA can be a valuable tool for understanding the merits of health promotion interventions and that CEA is particularly valuable in identifying screening strategies that might be promoted most cost-effectively.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15316909     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20511

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  10 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of patient mailings to promote colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Thomas D Sequist; Calvin Franz; John Z Ayanian
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Estimating development cost of an interactive website based cancer screening promotion program.

Authors:  David R Lairson; Tong Han Chung; Lisa G Smith; Jeffrey K Springston; Victoria L Champion
Journal:  Eval Program Plann       Date:  2015-02-23

3.  Cost-effectiveness of a standard intervention versus a navigated intervention on colorectal cancer screening use in primary care.

Authors:  David R Lairson; Melissa Dicarlo; Ashish A Deshmuk; Heather B Fagan; Randa Sifri; Nora Katurakes; James Cocroft; Jocelyn Sendecki; Heidi Swan; Sally W Vernon; Ronald E Myers
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-01-16       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Costs and cost effectiveness of a health care provider-directed intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Veena Shankaran; Thanh Ha Luu; Narissa Nonzee; Elizabeth Richey; June M McKoy; Joshua Graff Zivin; Alfred Ashford; Rafael Lantigua; Harold Frucht; Marc Scoppettone; Charles L Bennett; Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-10-13       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Improving colorectal cancer screening among the medically underserved: a pilot study within a federally qualified health center.

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

6.  Two controlled trials to determine the effectiveness of a mailed intervention to increase colon cancer screening.

Authors:  Carmen L Lewis; Alison Tytell Brenner; Jennifer M Griffith; Charity G Moore; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  N C Med J       Date:  2012 Mar-Apr

7.  Increasing Cardiomyopathy Screening in Childhood Cancer Survivors: A Cost Analysis of Advanced Practice Nurse Phone Counseling.

Authors:  Cheryl L Cox; M Robyn Andersen; Aimee K Santucci; Les L Robison; Melissa M Hudson
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 2.172

8.  Cost effectiveness of interventions to promote screening for colorectal cancer: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Swati Misra; David R Lairson; Wenyaw Chan; Yu Chia Chang; L Kay Bartholomew; Anthony Greisinger; Amy McQueen; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  J Prev Med Public Health       Date:  2011-05

9.  Validation of rule-based algorithms to determine colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening status using electronic health record data from an urban healthcare system in New York City.

Authors:  Aleeza J Leder Macek; Joshua D Kirschenbaum; Sarah J Ricklan; William Schreiber-Stainthorp; Britney C Omene; Sarah Conderino
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2021-10-12

10.  The uptake and effect of a mailed multi-modal colon cancer screening intervention: a pilot controlled trial.

Authors:  Carmen L Lewis; Alison T Brenner; Jennifer M Griffith; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2008-06-02       Impact factor: 7.327

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.