Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21900120›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2011

Model-based analyses to compare health and economic outcomes of cancer control: inclusion of disparities.

Sue J Goldie, Norman Daniels

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Simulation models for socioeconomic inequalities in health: a systematic review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2013
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The role of cancer research in noncommunicable disease control.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2012
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sue J GoldieDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Global Health Institute, Harvard University, 718 Huntington Ave, 2nd floor, Boston, MA 02115, USA. sue_goldie@harvard.edu
Norman Daniels
Harvard University · USHarvard University Press · US

Funding

Clinical & Cost Effectiveness of HPV Vaccination in the USR01CA093435 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI GOLDIE, SUE J · 2002 to 2009
$2.4M
Disparities in Cancer Prevention and ControlR01HS015570 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI KUNTZ, KAREN M · 2006 to 2009
$915k
AHRQ HHS R01 HS015570AHRQ HHS R01-HS015570-02NCI NIH HHS R01 CA093435NCI NIH HHS R01-CA093435
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDisease simulation models of the health and economic consequences of different prevention and treatment strategies can guide policy decisions about cancer control. However, models that also consider health disparities can identify strategies that improve both population health and its equitable distribution.

methodsWe devised a typology of cancer disparities that considers types of inequalities among black, white, and Hispanic populations across different cancers and characteristics important for near-term policy discussions. We illustrated the typology in the specific example of cervical cancer using an existing disease simulation model calibrated to clinical, epidemiological, and cost data for the United States. We calculated average reduction in cancer incidence overall and for black, white, and Hispanic women under five different prevention strategies (Strategies A1, A2, A3, B, and C) and estimated average costs and life expectancy per woman, and the cost-effectiveness ratio for each strategy.

resultsStrategies that may provide greater aggregate health benefit than existing options may also exacerbate disparities. Combining human papillomavirus vaccination (Strategy A2) with current cervical cancer screening patterns (Strategy A1) resulted in an average reduction of 69% in cancer incidence overall but a 71.6% reduction for white women, 68.3% for black women, and 63.9% for Hispanic women. Other strategies targeting risk-based screening to racial and ethnic minorities reduced disparities among racial subgroups and resulted in more equitable distribution of benefits among subgroups (reduction in cervical cancer incidence, white vs. Hispanic women, 69.7% vs. 70.1%). Strategies that employ targeted risk-based screening and new screening algorithms, with or without vaccination (Strategies B and C), provide excellent value. The most effective strategy (Strategy C) had a cost-effectiveness ratio of $28,200 per year of life saved when compared with the same strategy without vaccination.

conclusionsWe identify screening strategies for cervical cancer that provide greater aggregate health benefit than existing options, offer excellent cost-effectiveness, and have the biggest positive impact in worst-off groups. The typology proposed here may also be useful in research and policy decisions when trade-offs between fairness and cost-effectiveness are unavoidable.

Indexed as

Healthcare DisparitiesHealth Status DisparitiesAdultAgedBlack or African AmericanBreast NeoplasmsCancer VaccinesColorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHispanic or LatinoHumansIncidenceMaleCancer Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID21900120
PMCPMC3176779
OpenAlexW2112595425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.