The cost-effectiveness of cervical screening in Australia: What is the impact of screening at different intervals or over a different age-range?

UTSePress Research/Manakin Repository

Search UTSePress Research


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Anderson, Rob en_US
dc.contributor.author Haas, Marion en_US
dc.contributor.author Shanahan, M en_US
dc.contributor.editor en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2010-05-28T09:50:38Z
dc.date.available 2010-05-28T09:50:38Z
dc.date.issued 2008 en_US
dc.identifier 2006012605 en_US
dc.identifier.citation Anderson Rob, Haas Marion, and Shanahan M 2008, 'The cost-effectiveness of cervical screening in Australia: What is the impact of screening at different intervals or over a different age-range?', Blackwell Publishing, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 43-52. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 1326-0200 en_US
dc.identifier.other C1 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10453/9591
dc.description.abstract en_US
dc.description.abstract To estimate the cost-effectiveness of altering the currently recommended interval and age range for cervical screening of Australian women. METHODS: The cost and effectiveness estimates of alternative screening strategies were generated using an established decision model. This model incorporated a Markov model (of the natural history of cervical cancer and pre-cancerous lesions) and decision trees which: 'mapped' the various pathways to cervical cancer screening; the follow-up of abnormal Pap test results; and the management of confirmed lesions. The model simulated a hypothetical large cohort of Australian women from age 15 to age 85 and calculated the accumulated costs and life-years under each screening strategy. RESULTS: Our model estimated that moving from the current two-yearly screening strategy to annual screening (over the same age range) would cost $379,300 per additional life-year saved. Moving from the current strategy to three-yearly screening would yield $117,100 of savings per life-year lost (costs and effects both discounted at 5% per year), with a relatively modest (<5%) reduction in the total number of life-years saved by the program. CONCLUSIONS: Although moving to annual screening would save some additional lives, it is not a cost-effective strategy. Consideration should be given to increasing the recommended interval for cervical screening. However, the net value of any such shift to less effective (e.g. less frequent) and less costly screening strategies will require better evidence about the cost-effectiveness of strategies that encourage non-screeners or irregular screeners to have a Pap test more regularly. en_US
dc.publisher Blackwell Publishing en_US
dc.relation.hasversion Accepted manuscript version en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2008.00165.x en_US
dc.rights The definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com
dc.title The cost-effectiveness of cervical screening in Australia: What is the impact of screening at different intervals or over a different age-range? en_US
dc.parent Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health en_US
dc.journal.volume 32 en_US
dc.journal.number 1 en_US
dc.publocation Australia en_US
dc.identifier.startpage 43 en_US
dc.identifier.endpage 52 en_US
dc.cauo.name BUS.Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation en_US
dc.conference Verified OK en_US
dc.for 111702 en_US
dc.personcode 0000017237 en_US
dc.personcode 020119 en_US
dc.personcode 0000030933 en_US
dc.percentage 100 en_US
dc.classification.name Aged Health Care en_US
dc.classification.type FOR-08 en_US
dc.edition en_US
dc.custom en_US
dc.date.activity en_US
dc.location.activity ISI:000253504700010 en_US
dc.description.keywords cervical screening, economic evaluation, cost effectiveness en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record