The costs of offering HPV-testing on self-taken samples to non-attendees of cervical screening in Finland

Show full item record



Permalink

http://hdl.handle.net/10138/175415

Citation

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


Files in this item

Total number of downloads: Loading...

Files Size Format View
art_3A10.1186_2Fs12905_015_0261_7.pdf 856.6Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record