Examining the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening promotion.

作者: M. Robyn Andersen , Nicole Urban , Scott Ramsey , Peter A. Briss

DOI: 10.1002/CNCR.20511

关键词:

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

参考文章(70)
Susan E Stockdale, Emmett Keeler, Naihua Duan, Kathryn Pitkin Derose, Sarah A Fox, None, Costs and cost-effectiveness of a church-based intervention to promote mammography screening. Health Services Research. ,vol. 35, pp. 1037- 1057 ,(2000)
Mary E Costanza, Anne M Stoddard, Roger Luckmann, Mary Jo White, Jill Spitz Avrunin, Lynn Clemow, Promoting mammography American Journal of Preventive Medicine. ,vol. 19, pp. 39- 46 ,(2000) , 10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00150-1
V Hasselblad, J Hickey, S Datta, K Nanda, E Myers, D B Matchar, D C McCrory, L Bastian, Evaluation of cervical cytology. Evidence report/technology assessment (Summary). pp. 1- 6 ,(1999)
Steven M Teutsch, Anne C Haddix, Phaedra S Corso, Prevention effectiveness : a guide to decision analysis and economic evaluation Oxford University Press. ,(1996)
Herman Kattlove, Alessandro Liberati, Emmett Keeler, Robert H. Brook, Benefits and Costs of Screening and Treatment for Early Breast Cancer: Development of a Basic Benefit Package JAMA. ,vol. 273, pp. 142- 148 ,(1995) , 10.1001/JAMA.1995.03520260064034
Caryn Lerman, Bruce Trock, Barbara K. Rimer, Christopher Jepson, David Brody, Alice Boyce, Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. Health Psychology. ,vol. 10, pp. 259- 267 ,(1991) , 10.1037/0278-6133.10.4.259
Helen I. Meissner, Robert A. Smith, Barbara K. Rimer, Katherine M. Wilson, William Rakowski, Sally W. Vernon, Peter A. Briss, Promoting cancer screening: Learning from experience. Cancer. ,vol. 101, pp. 1107- 1117 ,(2004) , 10.1002/CNCR.20507
Tammy O. Tengs, Miriam E. Adams, Joseph S. Pliskin, Dana Gelb Safran, Joanna E. Siegel, Milton C. Weinstein, John D. Graham, Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Analysis. ,vol. 15, pp. 369- 390 ,(1995) , 10.1111/J.1539-6924.1995.TB00330.X
Caryn Lerman, Bruce Track, Barbara K Rimer, Alice Boyce, Chris Jepson, Paul F Engstrom, Psychological and Behavioral Implications of Abnormal Mammograms Annals of Internal Medicine. ,vol. 114, pp. 657- 661 ,(1991) , 10.7326/0003-4819-114-8-657