Trapero Bertran, MartaAcera Pérez, AmèliaSanjosé Llongueras, Silvia deManresa Domínguez, Josep MariaRodríguez Capriles, DiegoAna Rodriguez Martinez, AnaBonet Simó, Josep MariaSanchez Sanchez, NormanHidalgo Valls, PabloDiaz Sanchis, Mireia2018-09-122018-09-122017-02-14https://hdl.handle.net/2445/124483Background: 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.8 p.application/pdfengcc by (c) Trapero Bertran et al., 2017http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/Càncer de coll uteríAnàlisi cost-beneficiCervix cancerCost effectivenessinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article2018-07-24info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess28196467