Virtanen , A , Anttila , A & Nieminen , P 2015 , ' The costs of offering HPV-testing on self-taken samples to non-attendees of cervical screening in Finland ' , BMC Women's Health , vol. 15 , 99 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-015-0261-7
Title: | The costs of offering HPV-testing on self-taken samples to non-attendees of cervical screening in Finland |
Author: | Virtanen, Anni; Anttila, Ahti; Nieminen, Pekka |
Contributor organization: | Clinicum Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology HUS Gynecology and Obstetrics |
Date: | 2015-11-05 |
Language: | eng |
Number of pages: | 11 |
Belongs to series: | BMC Women's Health |
ISSN: | 1472-6874 |
DOI: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-015-0261-7 |
URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/10138/175415 |
Abstract: | Background: Offering self-sampling to non-attendees of cervical screening increases screening attendance. Methods: We used observations from two Finnish studies on the use of self-sampling among the non-attendees to estimate in a hypothetical screening population of 100,000 women the possible costs per extra screened woman and costs per extra detected and treated CIN2+ with three intervention strategies; 1) a primary invitation and a reminder letter, 2) a primary invitation and a mailed self-sampling kit and 3) two invitation letters and a self-sampling kit. The program costs were derived from actual performance and costs in the original studies and a national estimate on management costs of HPV related diseases. Results: The price per extra participant and price per detected and treated CIN2+ lesion was lower with a reminder letter than by self-sampling as a first reminder. When self-sampling was used as a second reminder with a low sampler price and a triage Pap-smear as a follow-up test for HPV-positive women instead of direct colposcopy referral, the eradication of a CIN2+ lesion by self-sampling was not more expensive than in routine screening, and the addition of two reminders to the invitation protocol did not increase the price of an treated CIN2+ lesion in the entire screened population. Conclusions: As a first reminder, a reminder letter is most likely a better choice. As second reminder, the higher costs of self-sampling might be compensated by the higher prevalence of CIN2+ in the originally non-attending population. |
Subject: |
Cervical cancer
Screening Self-sampling HPV-testing Cost-evaluation RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL GENERAL-PRACTICE CANCER PROGRAM WOMEN ATTENDANCE PARTICIPATION NONATTENDERS SPECIMENS COVERAGE 3142 Public health care science, environmental and occupational health 3123 Gynaecology and paediatrics |
Peer reviewed: | Yes |
Rights: | cc_by |
Usage restriction: | openAccess |
Self-archived version: | publishedVersion |
Total number of downloads: Loading...
Files | Size | Format | View |
---|---|---|---|
art_3A10.1186_2Fs12905_015_0261_7.pdf | 856.6Kb |
View/ |