Literature DB >> 32556187

Cost-effectiveness of Leveraging Social Determinants of Health to Improve Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

Giridhar Mohan1, Sajal Chattopadhyay2.   

Abstract

Importance: Screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers in the United States has remained below the Healthy People 2020 goals, with evidence indicating that persistent screening disparities still exist. The US Department of Health and Human Services has emphasized cross-sectoral collaboration in aligning social determinants of health with public health and medical services. Examining the economics of intervening through these novel methods in the realm of cancer screening can inform program planners, health care providers, implementers, and policy makers. Objective: To conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions leveraging social determinants of health to improve screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer to guide implementation. Evidence Review: A systematic literature search for economic evidence was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Global Health, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, EconLit, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), and Sociological Abstracts from January 1, 2004, to November 25, 2019. Included studies intervened on social determinants of health to improve breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the United States and reported intervention cost, incremental cost per additional person screened, and/or incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Risk of bias was assessed along with qualitative assessment of quality to ensure complete reporting of economic measures, data sources, and analytic methods. In addition, included studies with modeled outcomes had to define structural elements and sources for input parameters, distinguish between programmatic and literature-derived data, and assess uncertainty. Findings: Thirty unique articles with 94 706 real and 4.21 million simulated participants satisfied our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The median intervention cost per participant was $123.87 (interquartile interval [IQI], $24.44-$313.19; 34 estimates). The median incremental cost per additional person screened was $250.37 (IQI, $44.67-$609.38; 17 estimates). Studies that modeled final economic outcomes had a median incremental cost per person of $122.96 (IQI, $46.96-$124.80; 5 estimates), a median incremental screening rate of 15% (IQI, 14%-20%; 5 estimates), and a median incremental QALY per person of 0.04 years (IQI, 0.006-0.06 year; 5 estimates). The median incremental cost per QALY gained of $3120.00 (IQI, $782.59-$33 600.00; 5 estimates) was lower than $50 000, an established, conservative threshold of cost-effectiveness. Conclusions and Relevance: Interventions focused on social determinants of health to improve breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening appear to be cost-effective for underserved, vulnerable populations in the United States. The increased screening rates were associated with earlier diagnosis and treatment and in improved health outcomes with significant gains in QALYs. These findings represent the latest economic evidence to guide implementation of these interventions, which serve the dual purpose of enhancing health equity and economic efficiency.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32556187     DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1460

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Oncol        ISSN: 2374-2437            Impact factor:   31.777


  9 in total

1.  Association Between Neighborhood Socioeconomic Inequality and Cervical Cancer Incidence Rates in New York City.

Authors:  Stephanie Cham; Alicia Li; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Ana I Tergas; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright; Alexander Melamed
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 31.777

2.  Social determinants of health and cancer screening implementation and outcomes in the USA: a systematic review protocol.

Authors:  Ariella R Korn; Callie Walsh-Bailey; Meagan Pilar; Brittney Sandler; Prema Bhattacharjee; W Todd Moore; Ross C Brownson; Karen M Emmons; April Y Oh
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2022-06-08

3.  Burden of All Cancers Along With Attributable Risk Factors in China From 1990 to 2019: Comparison With Japan, European Union, and USA.

Authors:  Xiaorong Yang; Hui Chen; Shaowei Sang; Hao Chen; Lanbo Li; Xiaoyun Yang
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-05-26

Review 4.  Interconnected Clinical and Social Risk Factors in Breast Cancer and Heart Failure.

Authors:  Arjun Sinha; Avni Bavishi; Elizabeth A Hibler; Eric H Yang; Susmita Parashar; Tochukwu Okwuosa; Jeanne M DeCara; Sherry-Ann Brown; Avirup Guha; Diego Sadler; Sadiya S Khan; Sanjiv J Shah; Clyde W Yancy; Nausheen Akhter
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-05-20

5.  Association of Community Economic Distress and Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening, Incidence, and Mortality Rates Among US Counties.

Authors:  Chelsea Herbert; Alessandro Paro; Adrian Diaz; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-09-28       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  The association of health insurance and race with treatment and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Anastasios T Mitsakos; William Irish; Alexander A Parikh; Rebecca A Snyder
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-17       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Persistent racial disparities in cervical cancer screening with Pap test.

Authors:  Cassidi C McDaniel; Hayleigh H Hallam; Tiffany Cadwallader; Hee Yun Lee; Chiahung Chou
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2021-11-27

8.  Reduction in Standard Cancer Screening in 2020 throughout the U.S.

Authors:  Leslie K Dennis; Chiu-Hsieh Hsu; Amanda K Arrington
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-25       Impact factor: 6.639

9.  The Pharmacological Mechanisms of Xiaochaihutang in Treating Breast Cancer Based on Network Pharmacology.

Authors:  Lin Zheng; Hongnan Jiang; Ruoqi Li; Liying Song; Ruihan Chen; Honglin Dong
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 3.161

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.