Literature DB >> 2114040

Economic aspects of cervical cancer screening.

M A Koopmanschap1, K T Lubbe, G J van Oortmarssen, H M van Agt, M van Ballegooijen, J K Habbema.   

Abstract

The results of a cost-effectiveness analysis of cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands are reported, emphasizing the analysis of the costs of screening and consequent diagnosis and treatment. Many organized screening policies are evaluated, differing in age-range and interval between screens. The cost estimates are based on organization charts, file studies and tariffs. The costs of screening itself are by far the most important cost component. Screening increases the costs of diagnosis. Costs for primary treatment only rise for large screening policies. Screening causes savings in costs of terminal treatment, but these are small compared with the costs of screening. The costs per life-year gained for the most efficient policies amount to DFL 24,000 for the policy with 7 invitations per woman in a lifetime and rise considerably in case of more than 10 invitations. Cervical cancer screening appears to be less cost-effective than breast cancer screening, but compared with other services the results are comparatively good. Implementing one of the efficient organized screening policies and discouraging spontaneous screening beyond that schedule leads to considerable savings. Moreover, many organized policies which are not efficient are still superior to spontaneous screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2114040     DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(90)90294-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  12 in total

Review 1.  How can we develop a cost-effective quality cervical screening programme?

Authors:  Sue Wilson; Helen Lester
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Predicting mortality from cervical cancer after negative smear test results.

Authors:  G J van Oortmarssen; J D Habbema; M van Ballegooijen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-08-22

Review 3.  Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines.

Authors:  Natasha K Stout; Amy B Knudsen; Chung Yin Kong; Pamela M McMahon; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Antibiotic prophylaxis for haematogenous bacterial arthritis in patients with joint disease: a cost effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  P Krijnen; C J Kaandorp; E W Steyerberg; D van Schaardenburg; H J Moens; J D Habbema
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 19.103

Review 5.  Cost-effective policies for cervical cancer screening. An international review.

Authors:  M C Fahs; S B Plichta; J S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Quantitative estimates of the impact of sensitivity and specificity in mammographic screening in Germany.

Authors:  P G Warmerdam; H J de Koning; R Boer; P M Beemsterboer; M L Dierks; E Swart; B P Robra
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 3.710

7.  The frequency of Pap smear screening in the United States.

Authors:  Brenda E Sirovich; H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 8.  Willingness to pay for cancer prevention.

Authors:  Timothy L Hunt; Bryan R Luce; Matthew J Page; Robin Pokrzywinski
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Cluster-randomised trial of risk communication to enhance informed uptake of cervical screening.

Authors:  Rachel M Holloway; Clare Wilkinson; Tim J Peters; Ian Russell; David Cohen; Janine Hale; Cerilan Rogers; Helen Lewis
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 5.386

10.  Present evidence on the value of HPV testing for cervical cancer screening: a model-based exploration of the (cost-)effectiveness.

Authors:  M van Ballegooijen; M E van den Akker-van Marle; P G Warmerdam; C J Meijer; J M Walboomers; J D Habbema
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.