Cost-effectiveness of interventions to promote cervical screening in general practice

Cost-effectiveness of strategies to increase screening coverage for cervical cancer in Spain: the CRIVERVA study

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study is to carry out a cost-effectiveness analysis of three different interventions to promote the uptake of screening for cervical cancer in general practice in the county of Valles Occidental, Barcelona, Spain.

METHODS

Women aged from 30 to 70 years (n = 15,965) were asked to attend a general practice to be screened. They were randomly allocated to one of four groups: no intervention group (NIG); one group where women received an invitation letter to participate in the screening (IG1); one group where women received an invitation letter and informative leaflet (IG2); and one group where women received an invitation letter, an informative leaflet and a phone call reminder (IG3). Clinical effectiveness was measured as the percentage increase in screening coverage. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the perspective of the public health system with a time horizon of three to five years - the duration of the randomised controlled clinical trial. In addition, a deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed. Results are presented according to different age groups.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the most cost-effective intervention, IG1, compared with opportunistic screening was € 2.78 per 1% increase in the screening coverage. The age interval with the worst results in terms of efficiency was women aged < 40 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In a population like Catalonia, with around 2 million women aged 30 to 70 years and assuming that 40% of these women were not attending general practice to be screened for cervical cancer, the implementation of an intervention to increase screening coverage which consists of sending a letter would cost on average less than € 490 for every 1000 women.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01373723 .

How to increase uptake in oncologic screening: a systematic review of studies comparing population-based screening programs and spontaneous access

BACKGROUND

Cervical, breast and colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings are universally recommended interventions. High coverage of the target population represents the most important factor in determining their success. This systematic review aimed at assessing the effectiveness of population-based screening programs in increasing coverage compared to spontaneous access.

METHODS

Electronic databases and national and regional websites were searched. We included all studies on interventions aimed at increasing screening participation published between 1999 and 2009; for those published before, we consulted the Jepson et al. review (2000). We compared spontaneous access (including no intervention) vs population-based screening programs actively inviting the target population. Among the latter, we compared GP-based vs invitation letter-based interventions.

RESULTS

The invitation letter vs no intervention showed significantly more participation (RR=1.60 95%CI 1.33-1.92; RR=1.52 95%CI 1.28-1.82; RR=1.15 95%CI 1.12-1.19, for breast, cervical and CRC screenings, respectively). GP-based interventions, although more heterogeneous, showed a significant effect when compared with no intervention for breast (RR=1.74 95%CI 1.25-2.43), but not for cervical and CRC. No significant differences were found between invitation letter-based and GP-based organization (RR=0.99 95%CI 0.94-1.05; RR=1.08 95%CI 0.99-1.17, for breast and cervical cancer, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Population-based programs are more effective than spontaneous screening in obtaining higher testing uptake. Both invitation letter-based and GP-based programs are effective.

Randomised trial investigating the relationship of response rate for blood sample donation to site of biospecimen collection, fasting status and reminder letter: the 45 and Up Study

Background

Various options exist for collecting biospecimens and biomarkers from cohort study participants, and these have important logistic, resource and scientific implications. Evidence on how different collection methods affect participation and data quality is lacking. This parallel-design randomised trial, the Link-Up Study, involved blood sample donation and other data collection among participants in an existing cohort study, The 45 and Up Study. It aimed to investigate the relation of fasting status, reminder letters and data collection site to response rates, data quality and biospecimen yield.

Methods

Individuals aged 45 and over participating in The 45 and Up Study and living ≤20 km from central Wagga Wagga, NSW (regional area) or ≤10 km from central Parramatta, NSW (urban area) (n = 2340) were randomised, stratified by area of residence, to be invited to give a blood sample and additional data by attending either a clinic established specifically for the trial, with an appointment time (“dedicated clinic”, n = 1336) or an existing local commercial pathology centre (n = 1004). Within dedicated clinic groups, participants were randomised into fasting (n = 668) or non-fasting (n = 668) and, at the Parramatta pathology centre site, reminder letter after two weeks (n = 336) or no reminder (n = 334).

Results

Overall, 33% (762/2340) of invitees took part in the Link-Up Study; 41% (410/1002) among regional and 26% (352/1338) among urban-area residents (p < 0.0001). At the dedicated clinics, response rates were 38% (257/668) not fasting and 38% fasting (257/668) (participation rate ratio (RR) = 1.00, 95%CI 0.91-1.08, p = 0.98). The response rate was 22% among individuals randomised to attend the Parramatta pathology centre without a reminder and 23% among those sent a reminder letter (RR = 1.01, 0.93-1.09, p = 0.74). In total, the response rate was 38% (514/1336) at the dedicated clinics and 25% (248/1004) at the pathology centres (RR = 0.67, 0.56-0.78, p < 0.01); measures of height, weight and systolic and diastolic blood pressure did not vary materially between these groups, nor did the median number of aliquots of plasma, buffy coat and red cells collected.

Conclusions

Among cohort study participants, response rates for an additional study involving biospecimen collection, but not data quality or average biospecimen yield, were considerably higher at dedicated clinics than at existing commercial pathology sites.

Intervention to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers a systematic review of provider reminders

Most major medical organizations recommend routine screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. Screening can lead to early detection of these cancers, resulting in reduced mortality. Yet, not all people who should be screened are screened regularly or, in some cases, ever. This report presents results of systematic reviews of effectiveness, applicability, economic efficiency, barriers to implementation, and other harms or benefits of provider reminder/recall interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. These interventions involve using systems to inform healthcare providers when individual clients are due (reminder) or overdue (recall) for specific cancer screening tests. Evidence in this review of studies published from 1986 through 2004 indicates that reminder/recall systems can effectively increase screening with mammography, Pap, fecal occult blood tests, and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Additional research is needed to determine if provider reminder/recall systems are effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening by colonoscopy. Specific areas for further research are also suggested.

Client-directed interventions to increase community demand for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening a systematic review

Most major medical organizations recommend routine screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. Screening can lead to early detection of these cancers, resulting in reduced mortality. Yet not all people who should be screened are screened, either regularly or, in some cases, ever. This report presents the results of systematic reviews of effectiveness, applicability, economic efficiency, barriers to implementation, and other harms or benefits of interventions designed to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by increasing community demand for these services. Evidence from these reviews indicates that screening for breast cancer (mammography) and cervical cancer (Pap test) has been effectively increased by use of client reminders, small media, and one-on-one education. Screening for colorectal cancer by fecal occult blood test has been increased effectively by use of client reminders and small media. Additional research is needed to determine whether client incentives, group education, and mass media are effective in increasing use of any of the three screening tests; whether one-on-one education increases screening for colorectal cancer; and whether any demand-enhancing interventions are effective in increasing the use of other colorectal cancer screening procedures (i.e., flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, double contrast barium enema). Specific areas for further research are also suggested in this report.

Pressing the key pad: trial of a novel approach to health promotion advice

BACKGROUND

A relatively simple procedure, the Pap test, is effective in detecting early changes in the cervix; however, many at-risk women, even in developed countries, do not have regular Pap tests.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial of an interactive voice response (IVR) cervical screening brief advice involving 17,008 households is described. The IVR system automatically made calls to households and explained the nature of the call; selected one eligible woman aged 18-69 years; determined her screening status; delivered a message appropriate to her screening status; offered additional messages to counter common barriers; offered additional information on cervical screening and cancer; offered additional contact numbers; and offered to arrange for someone to call back. Cervical screening rate data were obtained from the Australian Health Insurance Commission (HIC) for 6 months before and following the intervention.

RESULTS

The cervical screening rate was found to have increased by 0.43% in intervention compared to the control postcodes, and the increase was greater for older women at 1.34%.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall conclusion was that IVR technology was a feasible means to contact women to deliver brief interventions aimed at increasing cervical screening rates and could economically target at-risk groups. The potential for linking IVR to centralized Pap test Registers to issue Pap test reminders should be explored.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for lung cancer with low dose spiral CT (computed tomography) in the Australian setting

INTRODUCTION

Low dose spiral computed tomography (CT) is a sensitive screening tool for lung cancer that is currently being evaluated in both non-randomised studies and randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

We conducted a quantitative decision analysis using a Markov model to determine whether, in the Australian setting, offering spiral CT screening for lung cancer to high risk individuals would be cost-effective compared with current practice. This exploratory analysis was undertaken predominantly from the perspective of the government as third-party funder. In the base-case analysis, the costs and health outcomes (life-years saved and quality-adjusted life years) were calculated in a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 male current smokers for two alternatives: (1) screen for lung cancer with annual CT for 5 years starting at age 60 year and treat those diagnosed with cancer or (2) no screening and treat only those who present with symptomatic cancer.

RESULTS

For male smokers aged 60-64 years, with an annual incidence of lung cancer of 552 per 100,000, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 57,325 dollars per life-year saved and 105,090 dollars per QALY saved. For females aged 60-64 years with the same annual incidence of lung cancer, the cost-effectiveness ratio was 51,001 dollars per life-year saved and 88,583 dollars per QALY saved. The model was used to examine the relationship between efficacy in terms of the expected reduction in lung cancer mortality at 7 years and cost-effectiveness. In the base-case analysis lung cancer mortality was reduced by 27% and all cause mortality by 2.1%. Changes in the estimated proportion of stage I cancers detected by screening had the greatest impact on the efficacy of the intervention and the cost-effectiveness. The results were also sensitive to assumptions about the test performance characteristics of CT scanning, the proportion of lung cancer cases overdiagnosed by screening, intervention rates for benign disease, the discount rate, the cost of CT, the quality of life in individuals with early stage screen-detected cancer and disutility associated with false positive diagnoses. Given current knowledge and practice, even under favourable assumptions, reductions in lung cancer mortality of less than 20% are unlikely to be cost-effective, using a value of 50,000 dollars per life-year saved as the threshold to define a "cost-effective" intervention.

CONCLUSION

The most feasible scenario under which CT screening for lung cancer could be cost-effective would be if very high-risk individuals are targeted and screening is either highly effective or CT screening costs fall substantially.

Examining the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening promotion

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) can help to quantify the contribution of the promotion of a screening program to increased participation in screening. The cost-effectiveness (C/E) of screening promotion depends in large part on the endpoints of interest. At the most fundamental level, the C/E of a strategy for promoting screening would focus on the attendance rate, or cost per person screened, and the C/E would be influenced by the costs of promotion, as well as by the size and responsiveness of the target population. In addition, the costs of screening promotion (measured as the cost per additional participant in screening) can be included in a CEA estimate of the screening technology. In this case, depending on the efficacy of the screening test and the costs and influence of the promotion, the C/E of screening may improve or become poorer. In the current study, the authors reviewed the literature on the C/E of cancer screening promotion. The following lessons were learned regarding the C/E of screening and its promotion: 1) high-quality information on the C/E of screening is increasingly available; 2) cost-effective promotion of screening is dependent on cost-effective screening strategies; 3) quality-of-life effects may be important in assessing the overall C/E of screening programs; 4) research efforts aimed at identifying cost-effective approaches to screening promotion are useful but sparse; 5) C/E studies should be better incorporated into well designed effectiveness research efforts; 6) variations in C/E according to intervention characteristics, population characteristics, and context should be evaluated in greater depth; 7) the long-term effects of screening promotion are critical to assessing C/E; 8) the effects of promotion on costs of screening must be better understood; and 9) CEA must be interpreted in light of other information. The authors showed that CEA can be a valuable tool for understanding the merits of health promotion interventions and that CEA is particularly valuable in identifying screening strategies that might be promoted most cost-effectively.

Accuracy of women's recall of opportunistic recruitment for cervical cancer screening in general practice

Evaluation of strategies to improve opportunistic recruitment via general practice of women overdue for a cervical smear requires an accurate behavioural measure. As part of an experimental trial to evaluate the effect of a postgraduate workshop on preventive care, we conducted this methodological study to determine the accuracy of women's recall of an opportunistic discussion about cervical screening, by comparing it against audiotapes (n = 524). Taking the taped evidence of the trainee's verbal behaviour as the gold standard, sensitivity was 85 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval (CI) 73.1 to 92.0 per cent) and specificity was 78 per cent (CI 73.9 to 81.6 per cent). Given the low rate of opportunistic recruitment by trainees in the main study, only one-third of positive recollections by women of an opportunistic discussion about cervical screening were correct. Until other measures have been validated, women's recall may continue to be used to measure general practitioners' behaviour, but an appreciation of likely bias is recommended.