Examining the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening promotion
Examining the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening promotion
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/cncr.20511
复制
发表时间：
2004-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
6.2
通讯作者：
Briss, PA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Andersen, MR;Urban, N;Briss, PA
成本效益分析(CEA)有助于量化促进筛查计划对增加筛查参与度的贡献。筛查推广的成本效益(C/E)在很大程度上取决于感兴趣的终点。在最基本的层面上，促进筛查战略的C/E将侧重于出席率，或被筛查的人均费用，C/E将受到宣传费用以及目标人口的规模和反应能力的影响。此外，筛查推广的成本(以筛查中每个额外参与者的成本衡量)可以计入筛查技术的CEA估计中。在这种情况下，根据筛查测试的效果以及推广的成本和影响，筛查的C/E可能会改善或变差。在目前的研究中，作者回顾了关于癌症筛查促进的C/E的文献。以下是关于筛查的C/E及其推广的经验教训：1)关于筛查C/E的高质量信息越来越多；2)筛查的成本效益的推广取决于成本效益的筛查策略；3)生活质量效应在评估筛查项目的总体C/E时可能是重要的；4)旨在确定筛查推广的成本效益方法的研究工作是有用的，但稀少；5)C/E研究应更好地纳入设计良好的有效性研究工作；6)根据干预特征、人口特征和背景，应更深入地评估C/E的变化；7)筛查推广的长期影响是评估C/E的关键；8)必须更好地了解推广对筛查成本的影响；9)必须参照其他信息来解释CEA。作者表明，CEA对于理解健康促进干预措施的优点是一个有价值的工具，而且CEA在确定可能以最具成本效益的方式推广的筛查策略方面特别有价值。2004年由美国癌症协会发表。
Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) can help to quantify the contribution of the promotion of a screening program to increased participation in screening. The cost-effectiveness (C/E) of screening promotion depends in large part on the endpoints of interest. At the most fundamental level, the C/E of a strategy for promoting screening would focus on the attendance rate, or cost per person screened, and the C/E would be influenced by the costs of promotion, as well as by the size and responsiveness of the target population. In addition, the costs of screening promotion (measured as the cost per additional participant in screening) can be included in a CEA estimate of the screening technology. In this case, depending on the efficacy of the screening test and the costs and influence of the promotion, the C/E of screening may improve or become poorer. In the current study, the authors reviewed the literature on the C/E of cancer screening promotion. The following lessons were learned regarding the C/E of screening and its promotion: 1) high-quality information on the C/E of screening is increasingly available; 2) cost-effective promotion of screening is dependent on cost-effective screening strategies; 3) quality-of-life effects may be important in assessing the overall C/E of screening programs; 4) research efforts aimed at identifying cost-effective approaches to screening promotion are useful but sparse; 5) C/E studies should be better incorporated into well designed effectiveness research efforts; 6) variations in C/E according to intervention characteristics, population characteristics, and context should be evaluated in greater depth; 7) the long-term effects of screening promotion are critical to assessing C/E; 8) the effects of promotion on costs of screening must be better understood; and 9) CEA must be interpreted in light of other information. The authors showed that CEA can be a valuable tool for understanding the merits of health promotion interventions and that CEA is particularly valuable in identifying screening strategies that might be promoted most cost-effectively. Published 2004 by the American Cancer Society.