File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Effectiveness and efficiency of opportunistic cervical cancer screening comparison with organized screening

TitleEffectiveness and efficiency of opportunistic cervical cancer screening comparison with organized screening
Authors
KeywordsCervical Screening
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Issue Date2004
PublisherLippincott Williams & Wilkins. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.lww-medicalcare.com
Citation
Medical Care, 2004, v. 42 n. 6, p. 600-609 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: Several countries have adopted nationally organized cervical screening programs, but many continue with opportunistic screening. Comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of the 2 systems is important for informing policy. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of an opportunistic cervical screening system, and to compare this with what could be achieved through an Organized program. Research Design: We propose a model for estimating the effectiveness and efficiency of opportunistic screening systems and demonstrate it using data from a cross-sectional study of 1826 women in Hong Kong. We estimated the coverage and frequency of screening and used this to estimate effectiveness (number of cases of invasive cervical cancer potentially prevented) and efficiency (tests per case prevented) of the current system. Similar estimates were made for various organized programs with different screening intervals and coverage. Results: Ever screening coverage in this opportunistic system was 44%, resulting in 26% to 31% reduction in potential new cases (n = 144-183). Compared with this, a 3-yearly or 5-yearly screening policy aiming for 80% coverage would prevent an additional 46% (equivalent to 254 new cases out of a population of 2.3 million women per year) and 41% (222 per year), respectively. This could be achieved with more efficient use of resources, reducing the number of tests per case prevented from 2018 to 1545 and 1007, respectively. Conclusions: At best, the effectiveness of this opportunistic system is equivalent to an organized program with 10-yearly screening and 50% coverage but at much greater cost. Poor coverage and overscreening of a minority of women contributes to its inefficiency. Copyright © 2004 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/151617
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.081
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.004
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAdab, Pen_US
dc.contributor.authorMcghee, SMen_US
dc.contributor.authorYanova, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorWong, CMen_US
dc.contributor.authorHedley, AJen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-06-26T06:25:30Z-
dc.date.available2012-06-26T06:25:30Z-
dc.date.issued2004en_US
dc.identifier.citationMedical Care, 2004, v. 42 n. 6, p. 600-609en_US
dc.identifier.issn0025-7079en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/151617-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Several countries have adopted nationally organized cervical screening programs, but many continue with opportunistic screening. Comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of the 2 systems is important for informing policy. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of an opportunistic cervical screening system, and to compare this with what could be achieved through an Organized program. Research Design: We propose a model for estimating the effectiveness and efficiency of opportunistic screening systems and demonstrate it using data from a cross-sectional study of 1826 women in Hong Kong. We estimated the coverage and frequency of screening and used this to estimate effectiveness (number of cases of invasive cervical cancer potentially prevented) and efficiency (tests per case prevented) of the current system. Similar estimates were made for various organized programs with different screening intervals and coverage. Results: Ever screening coverage in this opportunistic system was 44%, resulting in 26% to 31% reduction in potential new cases (n = 144-183). Compared with this, a 3-yearly or 5-yearly screening policy aiming for 80% coverage would prevent an additional 46% (equivalent to 254 new cases out of a population of 2.3 million women per year) and 41% (222 per year), respectively. This could be achieved with more efficient use of resources, reducing the number of tests per case prevented from 2018 to 1545 and 1007, respectively. Conclusions: At best, the effectiveness of this opportunistic system is equivalent to an organized program with 10-yearly screening and 50% coverage but at much greater cost. Poor coverage and overscreening of a minority of women contributes to its inefficiency. Copyright © 2004 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkins. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.lww-medicalcare.comen_US
dc.relation.ispartofMedical Careen_US
dc.rightsMedical Care. Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.-
dc.subjectCervical Screeningen_US
dc.subjectEffectivenessen_US
dc.subjectEfficiencyen_US
dc.titleEffectiveness and efficiency of opportunistic cervical cancer screening comparison with organized screeningen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailMcGhee, SM:smmcghee@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.emailWong, CM:hrmrwcm@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.emailHedley, AJ:hrmrajh@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityMcGhee, SM=rp00393en_US
dc.identifier.authorityWong, CM=rp00338en_US
dc.identifier.authorityHedley, AJ=rp00357en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/01.mlr.0000128007.04494.29en_US
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-2942657624en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros88455-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-2942657624&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume42en_US
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.spage600en_US
dc.identifier.epage609en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000221585500012-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridAdab, P=34467446100en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridMcGhee, SM=7003288588en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridYanova, J=6504467880en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWong, CM=7404954904en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridHedley, AJ=7102584095en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats