Cost-effectiveness of a cervical cancer screening programme in the Algarve region, Portugal;Análisis coste-efectividad del programa de detección sistemática del cáncer cervical en la región del Algarve, Portugal

Revista Espanola de Salud Publica

Volumn 78, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 341-353

  Novoa Vázquez, Rosa María ^a,b  

^a Centro Regional de Saude Publica   (Portugal)

^b NONE   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Cervix neoplasms; Cost benefit analysis; Mass screening; Program evaluation; Resource allocation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CARCINOMA IN SITU; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST OF ILLNESS; DECISION MAKING; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; LIFESPAN; MASS SCREENING; MONEY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PORTUGAL; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

EID: 3142726297     PISSN: 11355727     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/s1135-57272004000300004     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Brinton LA, Fraumeni JF. Epidemiology of Uterine Cervical Cancer. J Chronic Dis. 1986; 39: 1051-65.
2. a. ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1992.
3. Knox EG. Cancer of the uterine cervix. En: Magnus K, editor. Trends in cancer incidence. New York: Hemisphere Publishing corporation; 1982. p. 271-7.
4. Hakama M. Trends in the incidence of cervical cancer in the nordic countries. En: Magnus K, editor. Trends in cancer incidence. New York: Hemisphere Publishing corporation; 1982. p. 279-92.
5. Miller AB. The canadian experience of cervical cancer: Incidence trends and planned natural history investigation. En: Magnus K, editor. Trends in cancer incidence. New York: Hemisphere Publishing corporation; 1982. p. 311-20.
6. Hristova L, Hakama M. Effect of screening in the Nordic countries on deaths, costs and quality of life up to the year 2017. Acta Oncol 1997; 36:1-60.
7. Parkin DM, Moss SM. An evaluation of screening policies for cervical cancer in England and Wales using a computer simulation model. J Epidemiol Community Health 1986; 40:143-53.
8. Sasiensi P, Adams J. Effect of screening on cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales: analysis of trends with an age period cohort model. BMJ 1999; 318:1244-5.
9. Herrero R, Brinton LA, Reeves WC, Brenes MM, De Britton RC, Gaitan E et al. Screening for Cervical Cancer in Latin America: a case-control study. Int J Epidemiol 1992; 21:1050-6.
10. Van der Graaf Y, Zielhuis GA, Peer PG, Vooijs PG. The effectiveness of cervical screening: a population-based case-control study. J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41:21-6.
11. Boyes DA, Morrison B, Knox EG, Draper GJ, Miller AB. A cohort study of cervical cancer screening in British Columbia. Clin Invest Med 1982; 5:1-29.
12. Hogod C, Fog J. Screening- Why, when and how?. Denmark: National Board of Health; 1991.
13. De Novo Establishment and Cost-effectiveness of Papanicolaou Cytology Screening Service in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Cancer 2001; 91:928-39.
14. Davey DD, Naryshkin S, Nielsen ML, Kline TS. Atypical squamoux cells of undetermined significance: interlaboratory comparison and quality assurance monitors. Diagn cytopathol 1994; 11:390-6.
15. Davey DD, Woodhause S, Styer P, Stastny J, Mody D. Atypical epithelial cells and specimen adequacy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000; 124:203-11.
16. Chesebro MJ, Everet WD. A Cost-benefit Analysis of Colposcopy for Cervical Squamous Intraepitelial Lesions Found on Papanicolaou Smear. Arch Fam Med. 1996; 5:576-81.
17. Ostor AG. Natural history of cervical intraepitelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1993; 12:186-92.
18. Rabb SS, Steiner AL, Hornberger J. The cost-effectiveness of treating women with a cervical vaginal smear diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179:411-20.
19. Denny L, Kuhn L, Pollack A, Wainwright H, Wright TC. Evaluation of alternative methods of cervical cancer screening for resource-poor settings. Cancer. 2000; 89:826-33.
20. a. ed. Mexico: McGraw-Hill Interamericana; 1997.p. 1111-53.
21. Cuzick J, Sasiensi P, Davies P, Adams J, Normand C, Frater A et al. A systematic review of the role of human papillomavirus testing within a cervical screening programme. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3:1-196.
22. a. ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 103-27.
23. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, Bastian LA, Hasselblad V, Hickey JD et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a sistematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2000; 132:810-9
24. Fahey MT, Irving L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 141:680-9.
25. Myers ER, McCrory DC, Subramanian S. Setting the target for a better cervical screening test: characteristics of a cost-effective test for cervical neoplasia screening. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96:645-52.
26. Gyrd-Hansen D, Hdund B, Anderson P. A cost-effectiveness analysis of cervical cancer screening: health policy implications. Health Policy 1995; 34:35-51.
27. a. ed. Barcelona: Masson; 1996.
28. Koopmanschap MA, Van Oortmarssen GJ, Van Agt HM, Van Ballegooijen M, Habbema JD, Lubbe KT. Cervical-cancer screening: attendance and cost-effectiveness. Int J Cancer 1990; 45:410-5.
29. Bos AB, Van Ballegooijen M, Van Gessel-Dabekaussen AA, Habbema JD. Organised cervical cancer screening still leads to higher coverage than spontaneous screening in the Netherlands. Eur J Cancer 1998; 34:1598-601.