ArticleCancer2013
Costs of planning and implementing the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program.
Article in Cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of a fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program in a cancer center.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Article
- Colorectal Cancer Screening After Sequential Outreach Components in a Demographically Diverse Cohort.JAMA network open · 2024Observational
- Integrated interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of multiple cancer screenings: conceptual framework, determinants of implementation success, measurement challenges, and research priorities.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Source matters: a survey of cost variation for fecal immunochemical tests in primary care.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Program Components and Results From an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program Using Annual Fecal Immunochemical Testing.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2022Article
- Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening at Federally Qualified Health Centers.Health promotion practice · 2020Article
- Role of an Implementation Economics Analysis in Providing the Evidence Base for Increasing Colorectal Cancer Screening.Preventing chronic disease · 2020Article
- Cost-Effectiveness and National Effects of Initiating Colorectal Cancer Screening for Average-Risk Persons at Age 45 Years Instead of 50 Years.Gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Developing a Web-Based Cost Assessment Tool for Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs.Preventing chronic disease · 2019Article
- Identifying optimal approaches to scale up colorectal cancer screening: an overview of the centers for disease control and prevention (CDC)'s learning laboratory.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2019Review
- Observational
- Article
- Costs of colorectal cancer screening provision in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program: Comparisons of colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT based screening.Evaluation and program planning · 2017Article
- Importance of implementation economics for program planning-evaluation of CDC's colorectal cancer control program.Evaluation and program planning · 2017Article
- Public health impact of achieving 80% colorectal cancer screening rates in the United States by 2018.Cancer · 2015Article
- Implementing the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program: wisdom from the field.Cancer · 2013Article
- Clinical costs of colorectal cancer screening in 5 federally funded demonstration programs.Cancer · 2013Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initiated the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) to explore the feasibility of establishing a large-scale colorectal cancer screening program for underserved populations in the United States. The authors of the current report provide a detailed description of the total program costs (clinical and nonclinical) incurred during both the start-up and service delivery (screening) phases of the 4-year program.
methodsTailored cost questionnaires were completed by staff at the 5 CRCSDP sites. Cost data were collected for clinical services and nonclinical programmatic activities (program management, data collection, and tracking, etc). In-kind contributions also were measured and were assigned monetary values.
resultsNearly $11.3 million was expended by the 5 sites over 4 years, and 71% was provided by the CDC. The proportion of funding spent on clinical service delivery and service delivery/patient support comprised the largest proportion of cost during the implementation phase (years 2-4). The per-person nonclinical cost comprised a substantial portion of total costs for all sites. The cost per person screened varied across the 5 sites and by screening method. Overall, economies of scale were observed, with lower costs resulting from larger numbers of individuals screened.
conclusionsPrograms incur substantial variable costs related to clinical services and semivariable costs related to nonclinical services. Therefore, programs that serve large populations are likely to achieve a lower cost per person.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.