IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v17y2008i5p593-605.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

HPV triage testing or repeat Pap smear for the management of atypical squamous cells (ASCUS) on Pap smear: is there evidence of process utility?

Author

Listed:
  • Kirsten Howard
  • Glenn Salkeld
  • Kirsten McCaffery
  • Les Irwig

Abstract

A two‐stage standard gamble was used to evaluate women's preferences for alternative managements of atypical squamous cells of undermined significance (ASCUS) on Pap smear (repeat Pap smear compared with immediate HPV test), and to test for the evidence of process utility. Women's utilities for the health state scenarios were clustered towards the upper end of the 0–1 scale with considerable variability in women's preferences. There was evidence of process utility, with immediate human papillomavirus (HPV) testing strategies having lower valuations than repeat Pap smear, where the clinical outcome was the same. Mean (95% CI) utilities for HPV testing (negative test) followed by resolution were 0.9967 (0.9957–0.9978) compared with repeat Pap smear followed by resolution: 0.9972 (0.9964–0.9980). Mean (95% CI) utilities for immediate HPV testing (positive test), followed by colposcopy, biopsy and treatment were 0.9354 (0.8544–1.0) compared with repeat Pap smear followed by colposcopy, biopsy and treatment: 0.9656 (0.9081–1.0). Our results add to the existing evidence that the impact of healthcare interventions on well‐being is not limited to the effect of the intervention on the health outcomes expected from the intervention; process of care can have quality of life implications for the individual. A modelled application of trial‐based data will allow characterisation of the true population costs, benefits, risks and harms of alternative triage strategies and subsequent policy implications thereof. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirsten Howard & Glenn Salkeld & Kirsten McCaffery & Les Irwig, 2008. "HPV triage testing or repeat Pap smear for the management of atypical squamous cells (ASCUS) on Pap smear: is there evidence of process utility?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 593-605, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:17:y:2008:i:5:p:593-605
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1278
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1278
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1278?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. Salkeld, G. & Quine, S. & Cameron, I. D., 2004. "What constitutes success in preventive health care? A case study in assessing the benefits of hip protectors," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(8), pages 1593-1601, October.
    2. Stephen Birch & Joy Melnikow & Miriam Kuppermann, 2003. "Conservative versus aggressive follow up of mildly abnormal Pap smears: Testing for process utility," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 879-884, October.
    3. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    4. Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 1997. "Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 699-707, March.
    5. Stigler, George J & Becker, Gary S, 1977. "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 76-90, March.
    6. Ryan, Mandy, 1999. "Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 535-546, February.
    7. 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.
    8. Alan Shiell & Janelle Seymour & Penelope Hawe & Sue Cameron, 2000. "Are preferences over health states complete?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 47-55, January.
    9. Mooney, Gavin & Lange, Mette, 1993. "Ante-natal screening: What constitutes 'benefit'?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 873-878, October.
    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. Richard Abreu Lourenco & Marion Haas & Jane Hall & Rosalie Viney, 2017. "Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 347-362, March.
    2. Lidia Engel & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Conceptualising ‘Benefits Beyond Health’ in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(12), pages 1383-1395, December.

    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. Richard Abreu Lourenco & Marion Haas & Jane Hall & Rosalie Viney, 2017. "Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 347-362, March.
    2. Lidia Engel & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Conceptualising ‘Benefits Beyond Health’ in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(12), pages 1383-1395, December.
    3. Katherine Payne & Marion McAllister & Linda M. Davies, 2013. "Valuing The Economic Benefits Of Complex Interventions: When Maximising Health Is Not Sufficient," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 258-271, March.
    4. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    5. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    6. Stuart Wright & Cheryl Jones & Katherine Payne & Nimarta Dharni & Fiona Ulph, 2015. "The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 615-626, December.
    7. MORENO-TERNERO, Juan & OSTERDAL, Lars P., 2014. "Normative foundations for equity-sensitive population health evaluation functions," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014031, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    8. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    9. Brent Opmeer & Corianne Borgie & Ben Mol & Patrick Bossuyt, 2010. "Assessing Preferences Regarding Healthcare Interventions that Involve Non-Health Outcomes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, March.
    10. Arturo J Rios-Diaz & Jimmy Lam & Margarita S Ramos & Andrea V Moscoso & Patrick Vaughn & Cheryl K Zogg & Edward J Caterson, 2016. "Global Patterns of QALY and DALY Use in Surgical Cost-Utility Analyses: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, February.
    11. Ryan, Mandy & Netten, Ann & Skatun, Diane & Smith, Paul, 2006. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--An application to social care for older people," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 927-944, September.
    12. Fuhmei Wang & Jung-Der Wang, 2017. "Telehealth and Sustainable Improvements to Quality of Life," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 12(1), pages 173-184, March.
    13. 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.
    14. Kobelt, G., 2013. "Health Economics: An Introduction to Economic Evaluation," Monographs, Office of Health Economics, number 000004.
    15. Shackley, Phil & Cairns, John, 1996. "Evaluating the benefits of antenatal screening: an alternative approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 103-115, May.
    16. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    17. Goebbels, Adrienne F.G. & Lakerveld, Jeroen & Ament, André J.H.A. & Bot, Sandra D.M. & Severens, Johan L., 2012. "Exploring non-health outcomes of health promotion: The perspective of participants in a lifestyle behaviour change intervention," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 177-186.
    18. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Exel, N. Job A. van & Berg, Bernard van den & Bos, Geertruidis A.M. van den & Koopmanschap, Marc A., 2005. "Process utility from providing informal care: the benefit of caring," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 85-99, September.
    19. K. Klose & S. Kreimeier & U. Tangermann & I. Aumann & K. Damm, 2016. "Patient- and person-reports on healthcare: preferences, outcomes, experiences, and satisfaction – an essay," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    20. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Kjær, Trine, 2011. "The influence of information and private versus public provision on preferences for screening for prostate cancer: A willingness-to-pay study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 277-289, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:hlthec:v:17:y:2008:i:5:p:593-605. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.