Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/124483
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTrapero Bertran, Marta-
dc.contributor.authorAcera Pérez, Amèlia-
dc.contributor.authorSanjosé Llongueras, Silvia de-
dc.contributor.authorManresa Domínguez, Josep Maria-
dc.contributor.authorRodríguez Capriles, Diego-
dc.contributor.authorAna Rodriguez Martinez, Ana-
dc.contributor.authorBonet Simó, Josep Maria-
dc.contributor.authorSanchez Sanchez, Norman-
dc.contributor.authorHidalgo Valls, Pablo-
dc.contributor.authorDiaz Sanchis, Mireia-
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-12T11:48:15Z-
dc.date.available2018-09-12T11:48:15Z-
dc.date.issued2017-02-14-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2445/124483-
dc.description.abstractBackground: The aim of the study is to carry out a cost-effectiveness analysis of three different interventions to promote the uptake of screening for cervical cancer in general practice in the county of Valles Occidental, Barcelona, Spain. Methods: Women aged from 30 to 70 years (n = 15,965) were asked to attend a general practice to be screened. They were randomly allocated to one of four groups: no intervention group (NIG); one group where women received an invitation letter to participate in the screening (IG1); one group where women received an invitation letter and informative leaflet (IG2); and one group where women received an invitation letter, an informative leaflet and a phone call reminder (IG3). Clinical effectiveness was measured as the percentage increase in screening coverage. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the perspective of the public health system with a time horizon of three to five years - the duration of the randomised controlled clinical trial. In addition, a deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed. Results are presented according to different age groups. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the most cost-effective intervention, IG1, compared with opportunistic screening was (sic)2.78 per 1% increase in the screening coverage. The age interval with the worst results in terms of efficiency was women aged < 40 years. Conclusions: In a population like Catalonia, with around 2 million women aged 30 to 70 years and assuming that 40% of these women were not attending general practice to be screened for cervical cancer, the implementation of an intervention to increase screening coverage which consists of sending a letter would cost on average less than (sic)490 for every 1000 women.-
dc.format.extent8 p.-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherBioMed Central-
dc.relation.isformatofReproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4115-0-
dc.relation.ispartofBMC Public Health, 2017, vol. 17, num. 194-
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4115-0-
dc.rightscc by (c) Trapero Bertran et al., 2017-
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/*
dc.sourceArticles publicats en revistes (Institut d'lnvestigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL))-
dc.subject.classificationCàncer de coll uterí-
dc.subject.classificationAnàlisi cost-benefici-
dc.subject.otherCervix cancer-
dc.subject.otherCost effectiveness-
dc.titleCost-effectiveness of strategies to increase screening coverage for cervical cancer in Spain: the CRIVERVA study-
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article-
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion-
dc.date.updated2018-07-24T12:10:49Z-
dc.relation.projectIDinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/FP7/603019/EU//COHEAHR-
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess-
dc.identifier.pmid28196467-
Appears in Collections:Articles publicats en revistes (Institut d'lnvestigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL))

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Trapero-BertranM.pdf377.18 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons