Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27925175›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cancer2017

To expand coverage, or increase frequency: Quantifying the tradeoffs between equity and efficiency facing cervical cancer screening programs in low-resource settings.

Nicole G Campos, Vivien Tsu, Jose Jeronimo, Mercy Mvundura, Kyueun Lee, Jane J Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Identifying and prioritizing inefficiency causes in Iran's health system.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Nicole G CamposHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Center for Health Decision Science, 718 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA.
Vivien TsuPATH, Reproductive Health Program, P.O. Box 900922, Seattle, WA.
Jose JeronimoPATH, Reproductive Health Program, P.O. Box 900922, Seattle, WA.
Mercy MvunduraDevices and Tools Program, PATH, P.O. Box 900922, Seattle, WA.
Kyueun LeeHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Center for Health Decision Science, 718 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA.
Jane J KimHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Center for Health Decision Science, 718 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cervical cancer is a leading cause of cancer death worldwide, with 85% of the disease burden residing in less developed regions. To inform evidence-based decision-making as cervical cancer screening programs are planned, implemented, and scaled in low- and middle-income countries, we used cost and test performance data from the START-UP demonstration project in Uganda and a microsimulation model of HPV infection and cervical carcinogenesis to quantify the health benefits, distributional equity, cost-effectiveness, and financial impact of either (1) improving access to cervical cancer screening or (2) increasing the number of lifetime screening opportunities for women who already have access. We found that when baseline screening coverage was low (i.e., 30%), expanding coverage of screening once in a lifetime to 50% can yield comparable reductions in cancer risk to screening two or three times in a lifetime at 30% coverage, lead to greater reductions in health disparities, and cost 150 international dollars (I$) per year of life saved (YLS). At higher baseline screening coverage levels (i.e., 70%), screening three times in a lifetime yielded greater health benefits than expanding screening once in a lifetime to 90% coverage, and would have a cost-effectiveness ratio (I$590 per YLS) below Uganda's per capita GDP. Given very low baseline coverage at present, we conclude that a policy focus on increasing access for previously unscreened women appears to be more compatible with improving both equity and efficiency than a focus on increasing frequency for a small subset of women.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationHealth PolicyModels, EconomicAdultCarcinoma, Squamous CellCost-Benefit AnalysisDeveloping CountriesDNA, ViralEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHumansLife ExpectancyMass ScreeningMonte Carlo MethodPapillomaviridaeDNA, Viralcancer screeningcervical cancereconomic evaluationhealth disparitiesHPV DNA testhuman papillomavirusUganda

Identifiers

PMID27925175
PMCPMC5516173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.