Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2016
The Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Self-Sampling to Improve Routine Cervical Cancer Screening: The Importance of Respondent Screening History and Compliance.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Burger Emily A, Sy Stephen, Nygård Mari, Kim Jane J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing allows women to self-collect cervico-vaginal cells at home (i.e., self-sampling). Using primary data from a randomized pilot study, we evaluated the long-term consequences and cost-effectiveness of using self-sampling to improve participation to routine cervical cancer screening in Norway.
METHODS: We compared a strategy reflecting screening participation (using reminder letters) to strategies that involved mailing self-sampling device kits to women noncompliant to screening within a 5- or 10-year period under two scenarios: (A) self-sampling respondents had moderate under-screening histories, or (B) respondents to self-sampling had moderate and severe under-screening histories. Model outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and lifetime costs. The "most cost-effective" strategy was identified as the strategy just below $100,000 per QALY gained.
RESULTS: Mailing self-sampling device kits to all women noncompliant to screening within a 5- or 10-year period can be more effective and less costly than the current reminder letter policy; however, the optimal self-sampling strategy was dependent on the profile of self-sampling respondents. For example, "10-yearly self-sampling" is preferred ($95,500 per QALY gained) if "5-yearly self-sampling" could only attract moderate under-screeners; however, "5-yearly self-sampling" is preferred if this strategy could additionally attract severe under-screeners.
CONCLUSIONS: Targeted self-sampling of noncompliers likely represents good value-for-money; however, the preferred strategy is contingent on the screening histories and compliance of respondents.
IMPACT: The magnitude of the health benefit and optimal self-sampling strategy is dependent on the profile and behavior of respondents. Health authorities should understand these factors prior to selecting and implementing a self-sampling policy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(1); 95-103. ©2016 AACR.
METHODS: We compared a strategy reflecting screening participation (using reminder letters) to strategies that involved mailing self-sampling device kits to women noncompliant to screening within a 5- or 10-year period under two scenarios: (A) self-sampling respondents had moderate under-screening histories, or (B) respondents to self-sampling had moderate and severe under-screening histories. Model outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and lifetime costs. The "most cost-effective" strategy was identified as the strategy just below $100,000 per QALY gained.
RESULTS: Mailing self-sampling device kits to all women noncompliant to screening within a 5- or 10-year period can be more effective and less costly than the current reminder letter policy; however, the optimal self-sampling strategy was dependent on the profile of self-sampling respondents. For example, "10-yearly self-sampling" is preferred ($95,500 per QALY gained) if "5-yearly self-sampling" could only attract moderate under-screeners; however, "5-yearly self-sampling" is preferred if this strategy could additionally attract severe under-screeners.
CONCLUSIONS: Targeted self-sampling of noncompliers likely represents good value-for-money; however, the preferred strategy is contingent on the screening histories and compliance of respondents.
IMPACT: The magnitude of the health benefit and optimal self-sampling strategy is dependent on the profile and behavior of respondents. Health authorities should understand these factors prior to selecting and implementing a self-sampling policy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(1); 95-103. ©2016 AACR.