The cost-effectiveness of cervical self-sampling to improve routine cervical cancer screening: The importance of respondent screening history and compliance

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 95-103

  Burger, Emily A ^a,b   Sy, Stephen ^a   Nygard, Mari ^c   Kim, Jane J ^a  

^a HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^c CANCER REGISTRY OF NORWAY   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CERVICAL SELF SAMPLING; CERVICOVAGINAL SELF-SAMPLING DEVICE; COLPOSCOPY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; E-MAIL; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS DNA TEST; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL HISTORY; NORWAY; OBSTETRIC PROCEDURE; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PILOT STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SELF CARE; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; ECONOMICS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTION; PROCEDURES; PROGRAM EVALUATION; SELF EXAMINATION; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR; VIROLOGY;

ADULT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NORWAY; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PILOT PROJECTS; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SELF-EXAMINATION; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 85009062966     PISSN: 10559965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0350     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Arbyn M, Raifu AO, Weiderpass E, Bray F, Anttila A. Trends of cervical cancer mortality in the member states of the European Union. Eur J Cancer 2009;45:2640-8.
2. Snijders PJF, Verhoef VMJ, Arbyn M, Ogilvie G, Minozzi S, Banzi R, et al. High-risk HPV testing on self-sampled versus clinician-collected specimens: A review on the clinical accuracy and impact on population attendance in cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer 2013;132:2223-36.
3. Petignat P, Faltin DL, Bruchim I, TramerMR, Franco EL, Coutlee F. Are selfcollected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-Analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2007;105:530-5.
4. Verdoodt F, Jentschke M, Hillemanns P, Racey CS, Snijders PJF, Arbyn M. Reaching women who do not participate in the regular cervical cancer screening programme by offering self-sampling kits: A systematic review and meta-Analysis of randomised trials. Eur J Cancer 2015;51:2375-85.
5. Enerly E, Bonde J, Schee K, Pedersen H, Lonnberg S, Nygard M. Selfsampling for human papillomavirus testing among non-Attenders increases attendance to the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Programme. PLoS One 2016:14.
6. Lam J, Rebolj M, Ejegod DM, Rygaard C, Lynge E, Thomsen LT, et al. Nonattenders' screening history and participation rate in HPV self sampling: A pilot implementation [abstract]. In:Proceedings of the 30th International Papillomavirus Conference & Clinical Workshop; 2015 Sep 17-21, Lisbon, Portugual. IPVS; 2015.
7. Rozemeijer K, de Kok IMCM, Naber SK, van Kemenade FJ, Penning C, van Rosmalen J, et al. Offering self-sampling to non-Attendees of organized primary HPV screening: when do harms outweigh the benefits? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015;24:773-82.
8. Campos NG, Burger EA, Sy S, Sharma M, Schiffman M, Rodriguez AC, et al. An updated natural history model of cervical cancer: derivation of model parameters. Am J Epidemiol 2014;180:545-55.
9. Norwegian Directorate of Health konomisk evaluering av helsetiltak; 2014 [cited 2014 Sep 15]. Available from: https://helsedirektoratet.no/retningslinjer/veileder-i-okonomisk-evaluering-Av-helsetiltak.
10. Burger EA, Ortendahl JD, Sy S, Kristiansen IS, Kim JJ. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in Norway. Br J Cancer 2012;106:1571-8.
11. University of Oslo. Technical Appendix: Harvard Cervical Cancer Natural History Model Calibration and Costing Approach for Norway; 2016 [cited 2016 Jun 01]. Available from: http://www.med.uio.no/helsam/english/research/projects/preventive-strategies-hpv/harvardmodel-norwaytechnicalappendix. pdf.
12. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Average rates of exchange 2014. [cited 2015 Nov 22]. Available from: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/G5A/current/.
13. Cancer Registry of Norway. Cancer in Norway 2012: cancer incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence in Norway; 2014 [cited 2014 Oct 12]. Available from: http://www.kreftregisteret.no/Global/Cancer%20in% 20Norway/2012/CIN-2012-web.pdf.
14. Broberg G, Gyrd-Hansen D, Miao Jonasson J, Ryd M-L, Holtenman M, Milsom I, et al. Increasing participation in cervical cancer screening: Offering a HPV self-Test to long-Term non-Attendees as part of RACOMIP, a Swedish randomized controlled trial. Int J Cancer 2014;134:2223-30.
15. MendesD, Bains I, Vanni T, Jit M. Systematic reviewof model-based cervical screening evaluations. BMC Cancer 2015;15:334.
16. Pedersen K, Burger EA, Campbell S, Nygard M, Lonnberg S. Risk of cervical cancer by screening intensity: A registry-based analysis [abstract]. In:Proceedings of the 30th International Papillomavirus Conference & Clinical Workshop; 2015 Sep 17-21; Lisbon, Portugual. IPVS; 2015.
17. Olsen J, Jepsen MR. Human papillomavirus transmission and cost-effectiveness of introducing quadrivalent HPV vaccination in Denmark. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010;26:183-91.