OBJECTIVE: We conducted an economic evaluation of mammography promotion interventions in a population-based, nationally representative sample of 5500 women veterans. METHODS:Women 52 years and older were randomly selected from the National Registry of Women Veterans and randomly assigned to a survey-only control group and two intervention groups that varied in the extent of personalization (tailored vs. targeted). Effectiveness measures were the prevalence of at least one self-reported post-intervention mammogram and two post-intervention mammograms 6-15 months apart. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were the incremental cost per additional person screened. Uncertainty was examined with sensitivity analysis and bootstrap simulation. RESULTS: The targeted intervention cost $25 per person compared to $52 per person for the tailored intervention. About 27% of the cost was incurred in identifying and recruiting the eligible population. The percent of women reporting at least one mammogram were .447 in the control group, .469 in the targeted group, and .460 in the tailored group. The ICER was $1116 comparing the targeted group to the control group (95% confidence interval (CI)=$493 to dominated). The tailored intervention was dominated (more costly and less effective) by the targeted intervention. CONCLUSION: Decision-makers should consider effectiveness evidence and the full recruitment and patient time costs associated with the implementation of screening interventions when making investments in mammography screening promotion programs. Identification and recruitment of eligible participants add substantial costs to outreach screening promotion interventions. Tailoring adds substantial cost to the targeted mammography promotion strategy without a commensurate increase in effectiveness. Although cost-effectiveness has been reported to be higher for some in-reach screening promotion interventions, a recent meta-analysis revealed significant heterogeneity in the effect sizes of published health-plan based intervention studies for repeat mammography (i.e., some studies reported null effects compared with control groups).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: We conducted an economic evaluation of mammography promotion interventions in a population-based, nationally representative sample of 5500 women veterans. METHODS:Women 52 years and older were randomly selected from the National Registry of Women Veterans and randomly assigned to a survey-only control group and two intervention groups that varied in the extent of personalization (tailored vs. targeted). Effectiveness measures were the prevalence of at least one self-reported post-intervention mammogram and two post-intervention mammograms 6-15 months apart. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were the incremental cost per additional person screened. Uncertainty was examined with sensitivity analysis and bootstrap simulation. RESULTS: The targeted intervention cost $25 per person compared to $52 per person for the tailored intervention. About 27% of the cost was incurred in identifying and recruiting the eligible population. The percent of women reporting at least one mammogram were .447 in the control group, .469 in the targeted group, and .460 in the tailored group. The ICER was $1116 comparing the targeted group to the control group (95% confidence interval (CI)=$493 to dominated). The tailored intervention was dominated (more costly and less effective) by the targeted intervention. CONCLUSION: Decision-makers should consider effectiveness evidence and the full recruitment and patient time costs associated with the implementation of screening interventions when making investments in mammography screening promotion programs. Identification and recruitment of eligible participants add substantial costs to outreach screening promotion interventions. Tailoring adds substantial cost to the targeted mammography promotion strategy without a commensurate increase in effectiveness. Although cost-effectiveness has been reported to be higher for some in-reach screening promotion interventions, a recent meta-analysis revealed significant heterogeneity in the effect sizes of published health-plan based intervention studies for repeat mammography (i.e., some studies reported null effects compared with control groups).
Authors: Sally W Vernon; Deborah J del Junco; Jasmin A Tiro; Sharon P Coan; Catherine A Perz; Lori A Bastian; William Rakowski; Wen Chan; David R Lairson; Amy McQueen; Maria E Fernandez; Cynthia Warrick; Arada Halder; Carlo DiClemente Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-02-26 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Priscila G Brust-Renck; Valerie F Reyna; Evan A Wilhelms; Christopher R Wolfe; Colin L Widmer; Elizabeth M Cedillos-Whynott; A Kate Morant Journal: Behav Res Methods Date: 2017-08
Authors: Christopher R Wolfe; Colin L Widmer; Valerie F Reyna; Xiangen Hu; Elizabeth M Cedillos; Christopher R Fisher; Priscilla G Brust-Renck; Triana C Williams; Isabella Damas Vannucchi; Audrey M Weil Journal: Behav Res Methods Date: 2013-09
Authors: Giridhar Mohan; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Donatus U Ekwueme; Susan A Sabatino; Devon L Okasako-Schmucker; Yinan Peng; Shawna L Mercer; Anilkrishna B Thota Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Elisheva R Danan; Erin E Krebs; Kristine Ensrud; Eva Koeller; Roderick MacDonald; Tina Velasquez; Nancy Greer; Timothy J Wilt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ann C Klassen; Suruchi Sood; Amber Summers; Udara Perera; Michelle Shuster; Jessica P Lopez; Andrea McCord; Jared Stokes; Joann White; Amanda Wagner Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-01-15