IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v34y2011i2p97-104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness of targeted versus tailored interventions to promote mammography screening among women military veterans in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Lairson, David R.
  • Chan, Wen
  • Chang, Yu-Chia
  • del Junco, Deborah J.
  • Vernon, Sally W.

Abstract

Objective We conducted an economic evaluation of mammography promotion interventions in a population-based, nationally representative sample of 5500 women veterans.Methods Women 52 years and older were randomly selected from the National Registry of Women Veterans and randomly assigned to a survey-only control group and two intervention groups that varied in the extent of personalization (tailored vs. targeted). Effectiveness measures were the prevalence of at least one self-reported post-intervention mammogram and two post-intervention mammograms 6-15 months apart. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were the incremental cost per additional person screened. Uncertainty was examined with sensitivity analysis and bootstrap simulation.Results The targeted intervention cost $25 per person compared to $52 per person for the tailored intervention. About 27% of the cost was incurred in identifying and recruiting the eligible population. The percent of women reporting at least one mammogram were .447 in the control group, .469 in the targeted group, and .460 in the tailored group. The ICER was $1116 comparing the targeted group to the control group (95% confidence interval (CI)Â =Â $493 to dominated). The tailored intervention was dominated (more costly and less effective) by the targeted intervention.Conclusion Decision-makers should consider effectiveness evidence and the full recruitment and patient time costs associated with the implementation of screening interventions when making investments in mammography screening promotion programs. Identification and recruitment of eligible participants add substantial costs to outreach screening promotion interventions. Tailoring adds substantial cost to the targeted mammography promotion strategy without a commensurate increase in effectiveness. Although cost-effectiveness has been reported to be higher for some in-reach screening promotion interventions, a recent meta-analysis revealed significant heterogeneity in the effect sizes of published health-plan based intervention studies for repeat mammography (i.e., some studies reported null effects compared with control groups).

Suggested Citation

  • Lairson, David R. & Chan, Wen & Chang, Yu-Chia & del Junco, Deborah J. & Vernon, Sally W., 2011. "Cost-effectiveness of targeted versus tailored interventions to promote mammography screening among women military veterans in the United States," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 97-104, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:34:y:2011:i:2:p:97-104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(10)00065-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew H. Briggs & Bernie J. O'Brien, 2001. "The death of cost‐minimization analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 179-184, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Erin M Graybill & Peter McMeekin & John Wildman, 2014. "Can Aging in Place Be Cost Effective? A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-6, July.
    2. Nicholas Graves & Mary Courtney & Helen Edwards & Anne Chang & Anthony Parker & Kathleen Finlayson, 2009. "Cost-Effectiveness of an Intervention to Reduce Emergency Re-Admissions to Hospital among Older Patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(10), pages 1-9, October.
    3. Andrew R. Willan & Eleanor M. Pinto & Bernie J. O'Brien & Padma Kaul & Ron Goeree & Larry Lynd & Paul W. Armstrong, 2005. "Country specific cost comparisons from multinational clinical trials using empirical Bayesian shrinkage estimation: the Canadian ASSENT‐3 economic analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(4), pages 327-338, April.
    4. El-Banna, Asmaa & Petrou, Stavros & Yiu, Hei Hang Edmund & Daher, Shahd & Forrester, Donald & Scourfield, Jonathan & Wilkins, David & Evans, Rhiannon & Turley, Ruth & Wallace, Sarah, 2021. "Systematic review of economic evaluations of children’s social care interventions," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    5. Nikki McCaffrey & Meera Agar & Janeane Harlum & Jonathon Karnon & David Currow & Simon Eckermann, 2015. "Better Informing Decision Making with Multiple Outcomes Cost-Effectiveness Analysis under Uncertainty in Cost-Disutility Space," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
    6. Anthony Scott & Michela Tinelli & Christine Bond, 2007. "Costs of a Community Pharmacist-Led Medicines Management Service for Patients with Coronary Heart Disease in England," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 397-411, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:34:y:2011:i:2:p:97-104. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.