IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i24p5035-d296428.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cervical Cancer Screening Using a Systematic Invitation System in Lithuania

Author

Listed:
  • Justina Paulauskiene

    (Department of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Public Health, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, 47181 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Mindaugas Stelemekas

    (Department of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Public Health, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, 47181 Kaunas, Lithuania
    Health Research Institute, Faculty of Public Health, Lithuanian University of Health Science, 47181 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Rugile Ivanauskiene

    (Department of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Public Health, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, 47181 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Janina Petkeviciene

    (Department of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Public Health, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, 47181 Kaunas, Lithuania
    Health Research Institute, Faculty of Public Health, Lithuanian University of Health Science, 47181 Kaunas, Lithuania)

Abstract

In Lithuania, cytological screening of cervical cancer (CC) is largely opportunistic. Absence of standardized systematic invitation practice might be the reason for low participation rates. The study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of systematic invitation approach in CC screening programme from the perspective of a healthcare provider. A decision tree was used to compare an opportunistic invitation by a family doctor, a personal postal invitation letter with appointment time and place, and a personal postal invitation letter with appointment time and place with one reminder letter. Cost-effectiveness was defined as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per one additionally screened woman and per one additional abnormal Pap smear test detected. The ICER of one personal postal invitation letter was €9.67 per one additionally screened woman and €55.21 per one additional abnormal Pap smear test detected in comparison with the current screening practice. The ICER of a personal invitation letter with an additional reminder letter compared to one invitation letter was €13.47 and €86.88 respectively. Conclusions: A personal invitation letter approach is more effective in increasing the participation rate in CC screening and the number of detected abnormal Pap smears; however, it incurs additional expenses compared with current invitation practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Justina Paulauskiene & Mindaugas Stelemekas & Rugile Ivanauskiene & Janina Petkeviciene, 2019. "The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cervical Cancer Screening Using a Systematic Invitation System in Lithuania," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:24:p:5035-:d:296428
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/24/5035/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/24/5035/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chen-Yu Huang & Min Cheng & Na-Rong Lee & Hsin-Yi Huang & Wen-Ling Lee & Wen-Hsun Chang & Peng-Hui Wang, 2020. "Comparing Paclitaxel–Carboplatin with Paclitaxel–Cisplatin as the Front-Line Chemotherapy for Patients with FIGO IIIC Serous-Type Tubo-Ovarian Cancer," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-23, March.
    2. Li Sun & Shruti Patel & Camilla Fiorina & Audrey Glass & Lise Rochaix & Anna M. Foss & Rosa Legood, 2024. "A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved women in Europe," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(5), pages 829-844, July.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:24:p:5035-:d:296428. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.