Cost-effectiveness of strategies to increase cervical screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC).

Apostolos Tsiachristas, Matthew Gittins, Henry Kitchener, Alastair Gray
Author Information
  1. Apostolos Tsiachristas: 1 Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  2. Matthew Gittins: 2 Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
  3. Henry Kitchener: 3 Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, St. Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK.
  4. Alastair Gray: 1 Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Abstract

Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of strategies to increase cervical cancer screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC trial). Methods We performed an economic analysis alongside the STRATEGIC trial, comparing each of seven novel interventions for improving cervical screening uptake with control general practices in Greater Manchester and Grampian (United Kingdom). A template was developed to measure the intervention costs. Trial estimates of screening uptake were combined with data from the literature to estimate healthcare costs of each intervention. The added lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of attending cervical screening were estimated by a systematic literature review, with relevant results pooled and weighted by study quality. Trial results and estimated lifetime costs and benefits of screening were then combined in a decision analytic model, giving an incremental cost per QALY gained for each intervention. Uncertainty was addressed in probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses. Results Intervention costs per screening round per woman attending varied from about £1.20 (2014 UK) for the nurse navigator intervention to £62 for the unrequested HPV self-sampler kit. The meta-analysis revealed a lifetime discounted benefit from screening of 0.043 QALYs per woman attending, at an additional lifetime discounted cost of £234. The incremental cost per QALY gained in all interventions was below £13,000. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that only unrequested self-sampling and timed appointments have a high probability of being cost-effective. Conclusions Unrequested self-sampling and timed appointments are likely to be cost-effective interventions. Further research is required on the duration of effects and on implementing combinations of interventions.

Keywords

Associated Data

ISRCTN | ISRCTN 52303479

References

  1. Eur J Cancer. 2013 Apr;49(6):1374-403 [PMID: 23485231]
  2. BMC Public Health. 2017 Feb 14;17 (1):194 [PMID: 28196467]
  3. Health Technol Assess. 2016 Sep;20(68):1-138 [PMID: 27632816]
  4. BMJ. 2013 Mar 25;346:f1049 [PMID: 23529982]
  5. Health Technol Assess. 2004 Sep;8(36):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-158 [PMID: 15361314]
  6. J Med Screen. 2018 Jun;25(2):88-98 [PMID: 28530513]
  7. Prev Med. 1999 Nov;29(5):374-82 [PMID: 10564629]
  8. Br J Cancer. 2004 Jul 5;91(1):84-91 [PMID: 15162150]
  9. Prev Med. 2002 Jul;35(1):87-96 [PMID: 12079445]
  10. BMC Public Health. 2012 Sep 11;12:760 [PMID: 22962858]
  11. BMJ. 2011 Feb 10;342:d549 [PMID: 21310794]
  12. Lancet. 2004 Jul 17-23;364(9430):249-56 [PMID: 15262102]
  13. J Med Screen. 2010;17(2):91-6 [PMID: 20660438]

Grants

  1. 09/164/01/Department of Health

MeSH Term

Adult
Appointments and Schedules
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Early Detection of Cancer
Female
Health Care Costs
Humans
Patient Participation
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
State Medicine
United Kingdom
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0screeningcervicaluptakecostsperinterventionsinterventionlifetimeSTRATEGICattendingcoststrategiesincreasecancerfirstinvitationtrialUnitedKingdomTrialcombinedliteraturequalityQALYsestimatedresultsincrementalQALYgainedsensitivityanalyseswomanunrequesteddiscountedself-samplingtimedappointmentscost-effectiveCost-effectivenessObjectiveassesscost-effectivenessMethodsperformedeconomicanalysisalongsidecomparingsevennovelimprovingcontrolgeneralpracticesGreaterManchesterGrampiantemplatedevelopedmeasureestimatesdataestimatehealthcareaddedadjustedlifeyearssystematicreviewrelevantpooledweightedstudybenefitsdecisionanalyticmodelgivingUncertaintyaddressedprobabilisticunivariateResultsInterventionroundvaried£1202014UKnursenavigator£62HPVself-samplerkitmeta-analysisrevealedbenefit0043additional£234£13000ProbabilisticsuggestedhighprobabilityConclusionsUnrequestedlikelyresearchrequireddurationeffectsimplementingcombinations

Similar Articles

Cited By