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

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 43-52

  Anderson, Rob ^a   Haas, Marion ^b   Shanahan, Marian ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cost benefit analysis; Mass screening; Program evaluation

Indexed keywords

AGE; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CANCER SCREENING; COLPOSCOPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION TREE; DISEASE COURSE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE COST; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRECANCER; PROBABILITY; PROCESS MODEL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; WART VIRUS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUSTRALIA; COST SAVINGS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DECISION TREES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MARKOV CHAINS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PROGRAM EVALUATION; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 40449097906     PISSN: 13260200     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2008.00165.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Farnsworth A, Mitchell H. Prevention of cervical cancer. Med J Aust. 2003;178:6534.
2. Mitchell H. How much cervical cancer is being prevented [letter]? Med J Aust. 2003;178:298.
3. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cervical Screening in Australia 2004-2005. Canberra (AUST): AIHW; 2007. Cancer Series Report No. 38.
4. Sawaya GF, Brown AD, Washington AE, Garber AM. Current Approaches to Cervical-Cancer Screening. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(21):1603-7.
5. Dickinson JA. Cervical screening: time to change policy. Med J Aust. 2002;176:547-50.
6. Sculpher M, Pang F, Manca A, et al. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(49):1-206.
7. van Oortmarssen GJ, Boer R, Habbema JD. Modelling issues in cancer screening. Stat Methods Med Res. 1995;4(1):33-54.
8. Buxton M, Drummond M, van Hout B, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ. 1997;6:217-27.
9. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Evaluation of Cervical Cytology. Rockville (MD): AHCPR; 1999. Report No.: 5 Evidence Report/ Technology Assessment.
10. Myers ER, McCrory DC, Nanda K, Bastian L, Matchar DB. Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;151(12):1158-71.
11. Beck R, Pauker S. The Markov process in medical prognosis. Med Decis Making. 1983;3(4):419-58.
12. Keeler E. Decision trees and Markov models in cost-effectiveness research. In: Sloan F, editor. Valuing Health Care: Costs, Benefits and Effectiveness of Pharmaceuticals. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 1995. p. 185-205.
13. National Health and Medical Research Council. Screening to Prevent Cervical Cancer: Guidelines for the Management of Women With Screen Detected Abnormalities. Canberra (AUST): Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health; 1994.
14. Kuntz K, Weinstein MC. Modelling in economic evaluation. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory with Practice. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2001. p. 141-71.
15. Prorok PC. Mathematical Models and Natural History in Cervical Cancer Screening. IARC Sci Publ. 1986(76):185-98.
16. O'Brien B, Drummond M, Labelle R, Willan A. In search of power and significance: Issues in the design and analysis of stochastic cost-effectiveness studies in health care. Med Care. 1994;32:150-63.
17. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Health Chapter: How Women Care for their Health, In: Australian Social Trends, 2004. Canberra (AUST): ABS; 2004.ABS Catalogue No.: 4102.0.
18. Department of Health [homepage on the Internet]. Sydney (AUST): Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch, New South Wales DOH; 2000 August 21 [cited 2005 Jan 19]. NSW Health Surveys 1997 eand 1998: Cancer Screening Questions. Available from: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/ public-health/nswhs/screen/nsw_screen_cs4_cat.htm
19. Anderson R, Haas M, Shanahan M. The cost-effectiveness of tervical screening in Australia: the impact of imperfect compliance. Unpublished observations.
20. Eddy DM. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(3):214-26.
21. Fahs MC, Plichta SB, Mandelblatt JS. Cost-effective policies for cervical cancer screening: An international review. Pharmacoeconomics. 1996;9(3):211-30.
22. Goldie SJ, Kuhn L, Denny L, Pollack A, Wright TC. Policy analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in low-resource settings: clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness. J Am Med Assoc. 2001;285(24):3107-15.
23. Matsunaga G, Tsuji I, Sato S, Fukao A, Hisamichi S, Yajima A. Cost-effectiveness analysis of mass screening for cervical cancer in Japan. J Epidemiol. 1997;7(3):135-41.
24. Myers ER, McCrory DC, Subramanian S, et al. Setting the target for a better cervical screening test: characteristics of a cost-effective test for cervical neoplasia screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96(5):645-802.
25. Dewilde S, Anderson R. The cost-effectiveness of screening programs using single and multiple birth cohort simulations: a comparison using a model of cervical cancer. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:486-92.
26. Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee. Review of Automated and Semi-automated Cervical Screening Devices. Canberra (AUST): Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services; 1998.
27. Drummond M, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 1997.
28. George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991-1996). Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:1103-9.
29. Mitchell H, Hocking J. Predictors of early rescreening in the National Cervical Screening Program. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001;25(4):334-8.