OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of cervix and breast cancer screening in a public hospital emergency room. METHODS: Age-eligible women with nonurgent conditions and without recent screening were offered screening by a nurse. A decision analysis compared the costs and outcomes of emergency room screening and standard hospital screening efforts. RESULTS: The undiscounted cost-effectiveness results for establishing new programs were $4050 (cervical cancer), $403,203 (breast cancer), and $4375 (joint cervix and breast cancer) per year of life saved. If screening is added to an existing program, results are more favorable ($429, $21,324, and $479 per year of life saved for cervix, breast, and joint screening, respectively). Results were most sensitive to volume and probability of receiving treatment after an abnormal screen. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency room screening was cost-effective for cervical cancer; breast cancer screening was relatively expensive given the low number of women reached. More intensive recruitment and follow-up strategies are needed to maximize the cost-effectiveness of such programs.
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of cervix and breast cancer screening in a public hospital emergency room. METHODS: Age-eligible women with nonurgent conditions and without recent screening were offered screening by a nurse. A decision analysis compared the costs and outcomes of emergency room screening and standard hospital screening efforts. RESULTS: The undiscounted cost-effectiveness results for establishing new programs were $4050 (cervical cancer), $403,203 (breast cancer), and $4375 (joint cervix and breast cancer) per year of life saved. If screening is added to an existing program, results are more favorable ($429, $21,324, and $479 per year of life saved for cervix, breast, and joint screening, respectively). Results were most sensitive to volume and probability of receiving treatment after an abnormal screen. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency room screening was cost-effective for cervical cancer; breast cancer screening was relatively expensive given the low number of women reached. More intensive recruitment and follow-up strategies are needed to maximize the cost-effectiveness of such programs.
Authors: A C Marcus; L A Crane; C P Kaplan; A E Reading; E Savage; J Gunning; G Bernstein; J S Berek Journal: Med Care Date: 1992-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: H J de Koning; B M van Ineveld; G J van Oortmarssen; J C de Haes; H J Collette; J H Hendriks; P J van der Maas Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 1991-10-21 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: V Taylor; B Thompson; D Lessler; Y Yasui; D Montano; K M Johnson; J Mahloch; M Mullen; S Li; G Bassett; H I Goldberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Georgia Robins Sadler; Sheila F Lahousse; John Riley; Ben Mercado; Anne C Trinh; Lee Ann C Cruz Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Scott Ramsey; Elizabeth Whitley; Victoria Warren Mears; June M McKoy; Rachel M Everhart; Robert J Caswell; Kevin Fiscella; Thelma C Hurd; Tracy Battaglia; Jeanne Mandelblatt Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860