Trapero-Bertran Marta, Acera Pérez Amelia, de Sanjosé Silvia, Manresa Domínguez Josep Maria, Rodríguez Capriles Diego, Rodriguez Martinez Ana, Bonet Simó Josep Maria, Sanchez Sanchez Norman, Hidalgo Valls Pablo, Díaz Sanchis Mireia
Economy and Business Organisation Department, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (UIC), Barcelona, Spain.
Centre for Research in Economics and Health (CRES), University Pompeu Fabra, c/Immaculada 22, 08017, Barcelona, Spain.
BMC Public Health. 2017 Feb 14;17(1):194. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4115-0.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01373723 .
本研究旨在对西班牙巴塞罗那市西瓦列斯县基层医疗中促进宫颈癌筛查接受率的三种不同干预措施进行成本效益分析。
邀请年龄在30至70岁之间的女性(n = 15965)到基层医疗机构进行筛查。她们被随机分配到四组之一:无干预组(NIG);一组女性收到参与筛查的邀请信(IG1);一组女性收到邀请信和信息传单(IG2);一组女性收到邀请信、信息传单和电话提醒(IG3)。临床效果以筛查覆盖率的百分比增加来衡量。从公共卫生系统的角度进行成本效益分析,时间跨度为三到五年——即随机对照临床试验的持续时间。此外,还进行了确定性敏感性分析。结果按不同年龄组呈现。
与机会性筛查相比,最具成本效益的干预措施IG1的增量成本效益比(ICER)为每增加1%的筛查覆盖率2.78欧元。在效率方面结果最差的年龄区间是年龄小于40岁的女性。
在加泰罗尼亚这样一个有大约200万年龄在30至70岁之间女性的人群中,假设这些女性中有40%未到基层医疗机构进行宫颈癌筛查,实施一项通过发送信件来提高筛查覆盖率的干预措施,平均每1000名女性的成本将低于490欧元。
ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT01373723 。