Literature DB >> 31477431

Economics of Multicomponent Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Review.

Giridhar Mohan1, Sajal K Chattopadhyay2, Donatus U Ekwueme3, Susan A Sabatino3, Devon L Okasako-Schmucker1, Yinan Peng1, Shawna L Mercer1, Anilkrishna B Thota1.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: The Community Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended multicomponent interventions to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening based on strong evidence of effectiveness. This systematic review examines the economic evidence to guide decisions on the implementation of these interventions. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search for economic evidence was performed from January 2004 to January 2018. All monetary values were reported in 2016 US dollars, and the analysis was completed in 2018. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Fifty-three studies were included in the body of evidence from a literature search yield of 8,568 total articles. For multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening, the median intervention cost per participant was $26.69 (interquartile interval [IQI]=$3.25, $113.72), and the median incremental cost per additional woman screened was $147.64 (IQI=$32.92, $924.98). For cervical cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional woman screened were $159.80 (IQI=$117.62, $214.73) and $159.49 (IQI=$64.74, $331.46), respectively. Two studies reported incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $748 and $33,433. For colorectal cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional person screened were $36.63 (IQI=$7.70, $139.23) and $582.44 (IQI=$91.10, $1,452.12), respectively. Two studies indicated a decline in incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $1,651 and $3,817.
CONCLUSIONS: Multicomponent interventions to increase cervical and colorectal cancer screening were cost effective based on a very conservative threshold. Additionally, multicomponent interventions for colorectal cancer screening demonstrated net cost savings. Cost effectiveness for multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening could not be determined owing to the lack of studies reporting incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Future studies estimating this outcome could assist implementers with decision making. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31477431      PMCID: PMC6886701          DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.03.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Prev Med        ISSN: 0749-3797            Impact factor:   5.043


  61 in total

1.  Cost evaluation in a colorectal cancer screening programme by faecal occult blood test in the District of Florence.

Authors:  Grazia Grazzini; Stefano Ciatto; Cesare Cislaghi; Guido Castiglione; Manuele Falcone; Paola Mantellini; Marco Zappa
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.136

2.  Updating cost-effectiveness--the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold.

Authors:  Peter J Neumann; Joshua T Cohen; Milton C Weinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Cost-effectiveness of targeted versus tailored interventions to promote mammography screening among women military veterans in the United States.

Authors:  David R Lairson; Wen Chan; Yu-Chia Chang; Deborah J del Junco; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Eval Program Plann       Date:  2010-08-06

4.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Navigation Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening to Reduce Social Health Inequalities: A French Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Rémy De Mil; Elodie Guillaume; Lydia Guittet; Olivier Dejardin; Véronique Bouvier; Carole Pornet; Véronique Christophe; Annick Notari; Hélène Delattre-Massy; Chantal De Seze; Jérôme Peng; Guy Launoy; Célia Berchi
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2017-11-10       Impact factor: 5.725

5.  Strategies to improve repeat fecal occult blood testing cancer screening.

Authors:  Terry C Davis; Connie L Arnold; Charles L Bennett; Michael S Wolf; Cristalyn Reynolds; Dachao Liu; Alfred Rademaker
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Cost-effectiveness of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening use.

Authors:  David R Lairson; Melissa DiCarlo; Ronald E Myers; Thomas Wolf; James Cocroft; Randa Sifri; Michael Rosenthal; Sally W Vernon; Richard Wender
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 7.  Client-directed interventions to increase community access to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening a systematic review.

Authors:  Roy C Baron; Barbara K Rimer; Ralph J Coates; Jon Kerner; Geetika P Kalra; Stephanie Melillo; Nancy Habarta; Katherine M Wilson; Sajal Chattopadhyay; Kimberly Leeks
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 5.043

8.  Unit costs in population-based colorectal cancer screening using CT colonography performed in university hospitals in The Netherlands.

Authors:  M C de Haan; M Thomeer; J Stoker; E Dekker; E J Kuipers; M van Ballegooijen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-11-09       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Cost Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions with Their Effects on Health Disparity Being Considered.

Authors:  Kwang-Sig Lee; Eun-Cheol Park
Journal:  Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 4.679

10.  Cost-effectiveness of a tailored intervention designed to increase breast cancer screening among a non-adherent population: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Yoshiki Ishikawa; Kei Hirai; Hiroshi Saito; Jun Fukuyoshi; Akio Yonekura; Kazuhiro Harada; Aiko Seki; Daisuke Shibuya; Yosikazu Nakamura
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-09-11       Impact factor: 3.295

View more
  4 in total

1.  Development of a multilevel intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening in Appalachia.

Authors:  Electra D Paskett; Mark Dignan; Aaron J Kruse-Diehr; Jill M Oliveri; Robin C Vanderpool; Mira L Katz; Paul L Reiter; Darrell M Gray; Michael L Pennell; Gregory S Young; Bin Huang; Darla Fickle; Mark Cromo; Melinda Rogers; David Gross; Ashley Gibson; Jeanne Jellison; Michael D Sarap; Tonia A Bivens; Tracy D McGuire; Ann Scheck McAlearney; Timothy R Huerta; Saurabh Rahurkar
Journal:  Implement Sci Commun       Date:  2021-05-19

2.  Preventing Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Deaths: Assessing the Impact of Increased Screening.

Authors:  Krishna P Sharma; Scott D Grosse; Michael V Maciosek; Djenaba Joseph; Kakoli Roy; Lisa C Richardson; Harold Jaffe
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 2.830

3.  The Effect of Automated Mammogram Orders Paired With Electronic Invitations to Self-schedule on Mammogram Scheduling Outcomes: Observational Cohort Comparison.

Authors:  Frederick North; Elissa M Nelson; Rebecca J Buss; Rebecca J Majerus; Matthew C Thompson; Brian A Crum
Journal:  JMIR Med Inform       Date:  2021-12-07

4.  Acceptability, Utility, and Cost of a Mobile Health Cancer Screening Education Application for Training Primary Care Physicians in India.

Authors:  Sujha Subramanian; Regi Jose; Anoop Lal; Paul Augustine; Madeleine Jones; Bipin K Gopal; Shinu Krishnan Swayamvaran; Veena Saroji; Resmi Samadarsi; Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2021-07-27
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.