From cost-effectiveness information to decision-making on liquid-based cytology: Mind the gap

Health Policy

Volumn 89, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 193-200

  Legood, Rosa ^a   Wolstenholme, Jane ^b   Gray, Alastair ^b  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Cost effectiveness; Decision maker; Economic evaluation

Indexed keywords

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CYTODIAGNOSIS; DECISION MAKING; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; PILOT PROJECTS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 58349114245     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Spath H.M., Charavel M., Morelle M., and Carrere M.O. Formulary decision-making in public hospitals and private clinics in France: the role of pharmacoeconomic information. Journal d'Economie Medicale 22 (2004) 347-354
2. Hoffmann C., and Graf-von-der-Schulenburg J.M. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making. A European survey. The EUROMET group. Health Policy 52 (2000) 179-192
3. Drummond M., Cooke J., and Walley T. Economic evaluation under managed competition: evidence from the UK. Social Science and Medicine 45 (1997) 583-595
4. Duthie T., Trueman P., Chancellor J., and Diez L. Research into the use of health economics in decision making in the United Kingdom. Phase II. Is health economics 'for good or evil'?. Health Policy 46 (1999) 143-157
5. Hoffmann C., Stoykova B.A., Nixon J., Glanville J.M., Misso K., and Drummond M.F. Do health-care decision makers find economic evaluations useful? The findings of focus group research in UK health authorities. Value in Health 5 (2002) 71-78
6. Annell A., and Svarvar P. Pharmacoeconomics and clinical practice guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics 17 (2000) 175-185
7. Bryan S., Williams I., and McIver S. Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals. Health Economics 16 2 (2007) 179-193
8. Motheral B., Grizzle A., and Armstrong E. Role of pharmacoeconomics in drug benefit decision-making: results of a survey. Formulary 35 (2000) 416-421
9. Bloom B.S. Use of formal benefit/cost evaluations in health system decision making. American Journal of Managed Care 10 (2004) 329-335
10. Weatherly H., Drummond M., and Smith D. Using evidence in the development of local health policies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (2002) 771-781
11. Ross J. The use of economic evaluation in health care: Australian decision maker's perceptions. Health Policy 31 (1995) 103-110
12. Asim O. The use of results from economic evaluation in applied decison-making in the UK Health Service. PhD Thesis, Bristol University; 2005.
13. Sheldon T.A., Cullum N., Dawson D., Lankshear A., Lowson K., Watt I., et al. What's the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients' notes, and interviews. British Medical Journal 329 (2004) 999
14. ABACUS International. NICE guidance implementation tracking data source, methodology and results; 2005. http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/Abacus_report.pdf.
15. Williams I., McIver S., Moore D., and Bryan S. The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation. Health Technology Assessment 12 7 (2008)
16. Greenhalgh T., Robert G., Bate P., Macfarlane F., and Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of inovations in health service organisations: A systematic literature review (2005), Blackwell, Oxford
17. Locock L., Dopson S., Chambers D., and Gabbay J. Understanding the role opinion leaders in improving clinical effectiveness. Social Science and Medicine 53 (2001) 745-757
18. Polanyi M. The Tacit Dimension (1962), Anchor Day, New York
19. Payne N., Chilcott J., and McGoogan E. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technology Assessment 4 (2000) 1-73
20. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of liquid-based cytology for cervical screening. Health Technology Assessment No. 5; 2000.
21. Moss S.M., Gray A., Legood R., and Henstock E. Evaluation of HPV/LBC cervical screening pilot studies: first report to the Department of Health evaluation of LBC (2003), Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, Surrey
22. Moss S., Gray A., Marteau T., Legood R., Henstock E., and Maissi E. Evaluation of HPV/LBC cervical screening pilot studies: report to the Department of Health (2004), Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, Surrey, UK
23. Karnon J., Peters J., Platt J., Chilcott J., McGoogan E., and Brewer N. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technology Assessment 8 (2004) 1-78
24. National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Final appraisal determination: Guidance on the use of liquid-based cytology for cervical screening (Review of existing guidance number 5); 2003.
25. Department of Health. Modernising the NHS cervical screening programme: NICE appraisal on liquid-based cytology advice to the service. London: Department of Health; 2003.
26. Wilson E. Short review of cost and cost-effectiveness evidence for thinprep and surepath systems for liquid based cytology and an estimate of the cost of implementation across Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire Strategic health Authority (2004), NHS Health Economics Support Programme, University of East Anglia
27. Southwark PCT. Appendix 1 Funding liquid based cytology in 2006/07; 2006 http://www.southwarkpct.nhs.uk/document_view.php?PID=0000000001&DID=00000000000000000903.
28. Department of Health. Statistical bulletin: cervical screening programme, England: 2006-2007. London, Department of Health; 2007.
29. http://www.nice.org.uk/usingguidance/niceimplementationprogramme/nice_implementation_programme.jsp
30. Department of Health. Standards for Better Health. London, Department of Health; 2004.
31. The role of NICE guidance in the Healthcare Commission's assessment activities; January 2007 http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/NICEGuidanceHealthcareCommissionJan07.pdf.
32. Davey E., Barratt A., Irwig L., Chan S., Macaskill P., Mannes P., 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. The Lancet 367 9505 (2006) 122-132
33. Ronco G., Cuzick J., Pierotti P., Cariaggi M.P., Palma P.D., Naldoni C., et al. Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal 335 July (7609) (2007) 28 Epub May 21, 2007
34. Larsen R.J., Asmussen M., Christensen T., Olsen J., Poulsen P., and Sorensen J. Economic evaluations in international health technology assessments: A study of methodologies. Danish Health Technology Assessment (2003) 5
35. Philips Z., Ginnelly L., Sculpher M., Claxton K., Golder S., Riemsma R., et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technology Assessment 8 (2004) 36
36. Sawaya G.F., and Sox H.C. Trials that matter: liquid-based cervical cytology: disadvantages seem to outweigh advantages. Annals of Internal Medicine 147 November (9) (2007) 668-669
37. Davey E., D'Assuncao J., Irwig L., Macaskill P., Chan S.F., Richards A., et al. Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. British Medical Journal 335 July (7609) (2007) 31 Epub June 29, 2007
38. Legood R., Gray A., Wolstenholme J., and 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. British Medical Journal 332 January (7533) (2006) 79-85 Epub January, 2006