American journal of preventive medicine · 2014
Cervical cancer screening with AMIGAS: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание 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.
Lairson David R, Chang Yu-Chia, Byrd Theresa L, Lee Smith Judith, Fernandez Maria E, Wilson Katherine M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Hispanic women have a higher incidence of cervical cancer than all other races and ethnicities. In Hispanic subgroups, Mexican American women were among the least likely to have received cervical cancer screening. In a recent RCT, Ayudando a las Mujeres con Información, Guia, y Amor para su Salud (AMIGAS) was shown to increase cervical cancer screening rates among women of Mexican descent at 6 months in all intervention arms compared to the control arm. Limited information exists about the economics of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening rates among women of Mexican descent.
PURPOSE: This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the alternative AMIGAS intervention methods for increasing cervical cancer screening among low-income women of Mexican descent in three U.S. communities.
METHODS: Cost data were collected from 2008 to 2011 alongside the AMIGAS study of 613 women. Receipt of Pap test within 6 months of intervention was the primary outcome measure in the cost-effectiveness analysis, conducted during 2012-2013.
RESULTS: The cost per additional woman screened comparing the video-only intervention to usual care was $980. The cost increased to $1,309 with participant time cost included. With an additional cost per participant of $3.90 compared to flipchart only, the full AMIGAS program (video plus flipchart) yielded 6.8% additional women screened.
CONCLUSIONS: Results on the average and incremental cost-effectiveness of the AMIGAS program elements may assist health policymakers and program managers to select and appropriately budget for interventions shown to increase cervical cancer screening among low-income women of Mexican descent.
PURPOSE: This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the alternative AMIGAS intervention methods for increasing cervical cancer screening among low-income women of Mexican descent in three U.S. communities.
METHODS: Cost data were collected from 2008 to 2011 alongside the AMIGAS study of 613 women. Receipt of Pap test within 6 months of intervention was the primary outcome measure in the cost-effectiveness analysis, conducted during 2012-2013.
RESULTS: The cost per additional woman screened comparing the video-only intervention to usual care was $980. The cost increased to $1,309 with participant time cost included. With an additional cost per participant of $3.90 compared to flipchart only, the full AMIGAS program (video plus flipchart) yielded 6.8% additional women screened.
CONCLUSIONS: Results on the average and incremental cost-effectiveness of the AMIGAS program elements may assist health policymakers and program managers to select and appropriately budget for interventions shown to increase cervical cancer screening among low-income women of Mexican descent.