United Kingdom cervical cancer screening and the costs of time and travel

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 232-239

  Woolley, Claire ^a   Philips, Zoë ^a   Whynes, David K ^a   Cotton, Seonaidh C ^b   Gray, Nicola M ^c   Sharp, Linda ^d   Little, Julian ^e   Waugh, Norman R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^d NATIONAL CANCER REGISTRY IRELAND   (Ireland)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Colposcopy; Costs; Papanicolaou test; Screening

Indexed keywords

COSTS; HEALTH CARE; SAMPLING; SCREENING;

CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING; PAPANICOLAOU SMEAR TESTS; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION;

ONCOLOGY;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; CANCER CENTER; CANCER SCREENING; COLPOSCOPY; CONSULTATION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HEALTH CENTER; HUMAN; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; QUESTIONNAIRE; SAMPLE SIZE; SCREENING TEST; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

ADULT; COLPOSCOPY; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES; SCOTLAND; STATE MEDICINE; TIME FACTORS; TRAVEL; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 34247525545     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S026646230707016X     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Automobile Association. Motoring costs 2002 (petrol cars). 2005. Available at: http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/advice/archive.html. Accessed January 28, 2006.
2. Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D. Cost implications of routine mammography screening of women 50-69 years in the County of Funen, Denmark. Health Policy. 2000;54:125-141.
3. Bryan S, Buxton M, McKenna M, Ashton H, Scott A. Private costs associated with abdominal aortic anuerysm screening: The importance of private time and travel costs. J Med Screen. 1995;2:62-66.
4. Comptroller and Auditor General. The performance of the NHS cervical screening programme in England, HC 678 1997/98. London: National Audit Office; 1998.
5. Curtis L, Netten A, eds. Unit costs of health and social care 2004. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2004.
6. Cuschieri KS, Cubie HA. The role of human papillomavirus testing in cervical screening. J Clin Virol. 2005;32S:S34-S42.
7. Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L, et al. Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: A systematic review. Lancet. 2006;367:122-132.
8. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. National Travel Survey, 1997-1999. London: The Stationery Office; 2003.
9. Department of Transport. Values of time and operating costs, TAG unit 3.5.6. 2005. Available at: http://www.webtag.org.uk/webdocuments/3_Expert/ 5_Economy_Objective/3.5.6.htm. Accessed January 27, 2006.
10. Franco EL, Harper DM. Vaccination against human papillomavirus infection: A new paradigm in cervical cancer control. Vaccine. 2005;23:2388-2394.
11. Frew E, Wolstenholme JL, Atkin W, Whynes DK. Estimating time and travel costs incurred in clinic based screening: Flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer. J Med Screen. 1999;6:119-123.
12. Fryback DG, Craig BM. Measuring economic outcomes of cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2004;33:134-141.
13. Information Services Division Scotland. Number of cervical smears processed at NHS laboratories in Scotland. 2005. Available at: http://www.isdscotland.org/isd/files/cervical_cytology_TABLE _1_0106.xls. Accessed January 30, 2006.
14. Legood R, Gray A, Wolstenholme J, Moss S. Lifetime effects, costs, and cost effectiveness of testing for human papillomavirus to manage low grade cytological abnormalities: Results of the NHS pilot studies. BMJ. 2006;332:79-85.
15. Maissi E, Marteau TM, Hankins M, et al. Psychological impact of human papillomavirus testing in women with borderline or mildly dyskaryotic cervical smear test results: Cross section questionnaire study. BMJ. 2004;328:1293-1296.
16. Moseley RP, Paget S. Liquid-based cytology: Is this the way forward for cervical screening? Cytopathology. 2002;13:71-82.
17. National Statistics. Labour market: New earnings survey 2002. Newport: Office of National Statistics; 2002.
18. National Statistics. Key statistics for the urban and rural classification 2004. 2004. Available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ census2001/product_ks_ur_2004.asp. Accessed January 28, 2006.
19. Office of National Statistics. Cervical screening programme, England: 2002-3. London: ONS Statistical Bulletin 2003/24; 2003.
20. Orbell S, Hagger M, Brown V, Tidy J. Appraisal theory and emotional sequelae of first visit to colposcopy following an abnormal cervical screening result. Br J Health Psychol. 2004;9:533-555.
21. Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, Matthews FE. The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet. 2004;364:249-256.
22. Philips Z, Gray N, Avis M, Whynes DK. Psychosocial and economic aspects of a trial of management of mild and borderline cervical abnormalities (TOMBOLA). Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2002;6:23-29.
23. Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, et al. The role of costeffectiveness analysis in health and medicine [consensus statement]. JAMA. 1996;276:1172-1177.
24. Sach TH, Whynes DK. Measuring indirect costs: Is there a problem? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2:135-139.
25. Sach TH, Whynes DK, O'Donoghue GM, Archbold SM. Estimating time and out-of-pocket costs incurred by families attending a pediatric cochlear implant programme. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2005;69:929-936.
26. Sasieni PD, Adams J. Analysis of cervical cancer mortality and incidence data from England and Wales: Evidence of a beneficial effect of screening. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 2000;163:191-209.
27. Schulpher MJ, Buxton MJ, Ferguson BA, Spiegelhalter DJ, Kirby AJ. Screening for diabetic retinopathy: A relative costeffectiveness analysis of alternative modalities and strategies. Health Econ. 1992;1:39-51.
28. Scottish Executive. Urban rural classification 2003-4. 2004. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/rural/seurc-00.asp. Accessed January 27, 2006.
29. Sherlaw-Johnson C, Philips Z. An evaluation of liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing within the UK cervical cancer screening programme. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:84-91.
30. Shireman TI, Tsevat J, Goldie SJ. Time costs associated with cervical cancer screening. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:146-152.
31. Thompson S, Wordsworth S, for the UK Working Party on Patient Costs. An annotated cost questionnaire for completion by patients. Aberdeen: Health Economics Research Unit Discussion Paper 03/01; 2001.
32. Transport 2000. Facts and figures. 2005. Available at: http://www.transport2000.org.uk/factsandfigures/Facts.asp. Accessed January 27, 2006.
33. Walboomers JMM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol. 1999;189:12-19.
34. Waugh N, Smith I, Robertson A, et al. Costs and benefits of cervical screening, I: the costs of the cervical screening programme. Cytopathology. 1996;7:231-240.
35. Whynes DK, Frew EJ, Edwards R, AtkinWS. Costs of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:384-395.