IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v25y2024i5d10.1007_s10198-023-01627-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved women in Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Li Sun

    (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

  • Shruti Patel

    (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

  • Camilla Fiorina

    (Paris School of Economics)

  • Audrey Glass

    (Paris School of Economics)

  • Lise Rochaix

    (Paris School of Economics)

  • Anna M. Foss

    (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

  • Rosa Legood

    (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

Abstract

Background This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness studies of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening uptake rates in underserved women in Europe. Methods A search of Embase, Medline, Global Health, PsychINFO, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database was conducted for studies published between January 2000 and September 2022. Studies were eligible if they analysed the cost-effectiveness of any interventions to improve participation in cervical cancer screening among underserved women of any age eligible to participate in cervical cancer screening in European countries, in any language. Study characteristics and cost-effectiveness results were summarised. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond Checklist, and methodological choices were further compared. Results The searches yielded 962 unique studies, with 17 of these (from twelve European countries) meeting the eligibility criteria for data extraction. All studies focused on underscreened women as an overarching group, with no identified studies focusing on specific subgroups of underserved women. Generally, self-HPV testing and reminder interventions were shown to be cost-effective to increase the uptake rates. There was also research showing that addressing access issues and adopting different screening modalities could be economically attractive in some settings, but the current evidence is insufficient due to the limited number of studies. Conclusion This systematic review has revealed a gap in the literature on the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve uptake rates of cervical cancer screening through tailored provision for specific groups of underserved women.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:25:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-023-01627-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-023-01627-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-023-01627-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-023-01627-1?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
    ---><---

    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. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    2. 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.
    3. Barbara Willems & Piet Bracke, 2018. "The education gradient in cancer screening participation: a consistent phenomenon across Europe?," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 63(1), pages 93-103, January.
    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. Dyfrig Hughes & Joanna Charles & Dalia Dawoud & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards & Emily Holmes & Carys Jones & Paul Parham & Catrin Plumpton & Colin Ridyard & Huw Lloyd-Williams & Eifiona Wood & Seow Tien Yeo, 2016. "Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 447-461, May.
    2. Paal Joranger & Arild Nesbakken & Halfdan Sorbye & Geir Hoff & Arne Oshaug & Eline Aas, 2020. "Survival and costs of colorectal cancer treatment and effects of changing treatment strategies: a model approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 321-334, April.
    3. Mara Airoldi & Alec Morton & Jenifer A. E. Smith & Gwyn Bevan, 2014. "STAR—People-Powered Prioritization," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 965-975, November.
    4. Refoios Camejo, Rodrigo & McGrath, Clare & Herings, Ron, 2011. "A dynamic perspective on pharmaceutical competition, drug development and cost effectiveness," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 18-24, April.
    5. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    6. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    7. Laurence M. Djatche & Stefan Varga & Robert D. Lieberthal, 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness of Aspirin Adherence for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 371-380, December.
    8. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    9. Nadja Chernyak & Heribert Sattel & Marsel Scheer & Christina Baechle & Johannes Kruse & Peter Henningsen & Andrea Icks, 2014. "Economic Evaluation of Brief Psychodynamic Interpersonal Therapy in Patients with Multisomatoform Disorder," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-4, January.
    10. Catherine Pitt & Catherine Goodman & Kara Hanson, 2016. "Economic Evaluation in Global Perspective: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Recent Literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 9-28, February.
    11. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & M. Zia Sadique, 2013. "Statistical Methods For Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data: A Critical Appraisal Tool And Review Of Current Practice," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 486-500, April.
    13. Ângela J. Ben & Jeruza L. Neyeloff & Camila F. Souza & Ana Paula O. Rosses & Aline L. Araujo & Adriana Szortika & Franciele Locatelli & Gabriela Carvalho & Cristina R. Neumann, 2020. "Cost-utility Analysis of Opportunistic and Systematic Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Strategies from the Perspective of the Brazilian Public Healthcare System," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 57-68, February.
    14. Barbara Graaff & Lei Si & Amanda L. Neil & Kwang Chien Yee & Kristy Sanderson & Lyle C. Gurrin & Andrew J. Palmer, 2017. "Population Screening for Hereditary Haemochromatosis in Australia: Construction and Validation of a State-Transition Cost-Effectiveness Model," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 37-51, March.
    15. Christopher Fitzpatrick & Katherine Floyd, 2012. "A Systematic Review of the Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Treatment for Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 63-80, January.
    16. Wei Zhang & Huiying Sun & Simon Woodcock & Aslam H. Anis, 2017. "Valuing productivity loss due to absenteeism: firm-level evidence from a Canadian linked employer-employee survey," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, December.
    17. R. Hoorn & A. Donders & M. Oppe & P. Stalmeier, 2014. "The Better than Dead Method: Feasibility and Interpretation of a Valuation Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 789-799, August.
    18. Hareth Al-Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Joanna Coast, 2011. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Carer Experience Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 458-468, May.
    19. Lairson, David R. & Chung, Tong Han & Smith, Lisa G. & Springston, Jeffrey K. & Champion, Victoria L., 2015. "Estimating development cost of an interactive website based cancer screening promotion program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 56-62.
    20. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.

    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:spr:eujhec:v:25:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-023-01627-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.