Literature DB >> 15358997

The cost-effectiveness of screening programs using single and multiple birth cohort simulations: a comparison using a model of cervical cancer.

Sarah Dewilde1, Rob Anderson.   

Abstract

Despite early recognition of the theoretical advantages of simulations that include different population subgroups/ strata and different birth cohorts, many modeling-based economic evaluations of cervical screening have been based on unrealistic single birth cohort simulations. The authors examined the effect of a multiple birth cohort simulation on the incremental cost-effectiveness estimates of cervical screening programs, compared to a conventional single cohort simulation. The choice of hypothetical cohort that starts the simulation had a major impact on the cost-effectiveness estimates: Compared with a single birth cohort simulation, the incremental cost-effectiveness of a shift from biennial to triennial screening was 30% higher when using the multiple cohort simulation. Multiple cohort simulations using the different age structures of 4 countries had little impact on the cost effectiveness ratios (variation <5%). Future modeling-based evaluations of screening policies should better reflect the age range of the population that is targeted by carefully specifying the nature of the starting cohort(s).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15358997     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04268953

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  10 in total

1.  Population- versus cohort-based modelling approaches.

Authors:  Olivier Ethgen; Baudouin Standaert
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Computational modeling and multilevel cancer control interventions.

Authors:  Joseph P Morrissey; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Rebecca Anhang Price; Jeanne Mandelblatt
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-05

Review 3.  Cost-effectiveness analyses of vaccination programmes : a focused review of modelling approaches.

Authors:  Sun-Young Kim; Sue J Goldie
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Dynamic microsimulation models for health outcomes: a review.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; Alan M Zaslavsky; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Multicohort models in cost-effectiveness analysis: why aggregating estimates over multiple cohorts can hide useful information.

Authors:  James F O'Mahony; Joost van Rosmalen; Ann G Zauber; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012-08-27       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Dedicated outreach service for hard to reach patients with tuberculosis in London: observational study and economic evaluation.

Authors:  Mark Jit; Helen R Stagg; Robert W Aldridge; Peter J White; Ibrahim Abubakar
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-09-14

7.  Bayesian history matching of complex infectious disease models using emulation: a tutorial and a case study on HIV in Uganda.

Authors:  Ioannis Andrianakis; Ian R Vernon; Nicky McCreesh; Trevelyan J McKinley; Jeremy E Oakley; Rebecca N Nsubuga; Michael Goldstein; Richard G White
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 4.475

8.  Dealing with Time in Health Economic Evaluation: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice.

Authors:  James F O'Mahony; Anthony T Newall; Joost van Rosmalen
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Interpreting cost-effectiveness ratios in a cost-effectiveness analysis of risk-tailored prostate screening: A critique of Callender et al.

Authors:  James F O'Mahony
Journal:  HRB Open Res       Date:  2020-05-13

10.  Economic evaluation of the breast cancer screening programme in the Basque Country: retrospective cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis.

Authors:  Arantzazu Arrospide; Montserrat Rue; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Merce Comas; Myriam Soto-Gordoa; Garbiñe Sarriugarte; Javier Mar
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 4.430

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.