IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v24y2004i5p486-492.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Programs Using Single and Multiple Birth Cohort Simulations: A Comparison Using a Model of Cervical Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Dewilde

    (MEDTAP International® Inc., London, UK)

  • Rob Anderson

    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australialia.)

Abstract

Despite early recognition of the theoretical advantages of simulations that include different population subgroups/ strata and different birth cohorts, manymodeling-based economic evaluations of cervical screening have been based on unrealistic single birth cohort simulations. The authors examined the effect of amultiple birth cohort simulation on the incremental cost-effectiveness estimates of cervical screening programs, compared to a conventional single cohort simulation. The choice of hypothetical cohort that starts the simulation had a major impact on the cost-effectiveness estimates: Compared with a single birth cohort simulation, the incremental cost-effectiveness of a shift from biennial to triennial screening was 30% higher when using the multiple cohort simulation. Multiple cohort simulations using the different age structures of 4 countries had little impact on the costeffectiveness ratios (variation

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Dewilde & Rob Anderson, 2004. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Programs Using Single and Multiple Birth Cohort Simulations: A Comparison Using a Model of Cervical Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(5), pages 486-492, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:5:p:486-492
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04268953
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X04268953
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X04268953?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Habbema, J. D. F. & Lubbe, J. Th. N. & van Oortmarssen, G. J. & van der Maas, P. J., 1987. "A simulation approach to cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit calculations of screening for the early detection of disease," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 159-166, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ioannis Andrianakis & Ian R Vernon & Nicky McCreesh & Trevelyan J McKinley & Jeremy E Oakley & Rebecca N Nsubuga & Michael Goldstein & Richard G White, 2015. "Bayesian History Matching of Complex Infectious Disease Models Using Emulation: A Tutorial and a Case Study on HIV in Uganda," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Olivier Ethgen & Baudouin Standaert, 2012. "Population–versus Cohort–Based Modelling Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 171-181, March.
    3. Sun-Young Kim & Sue Goldie, 2008. "Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Vaccination Programmes," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 191-215, March.

    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. Natasha Stout & Amy Knudsen & Chung Kong & Pamela McMahon & G. Gazelle, 2009. "Calibration Methods Used in Cancer Simulation Models and Suggested Reporting Guidelines," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(7), pages 533-545, July.
    2. Marion S. Rauner & Walter J. Gutjahr & Kurt Heidenberger & Joachim Wagner & Joseph Pasia, 2010. "Dynamic Policy Modeling for Chronic Diseases: Metaheuristic-Based Identification of Pareto-Optimal Screening Strategies," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(5), pages 1269-1286, October.

    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:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:5:p:486-492. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.