Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28369405›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2017

Cost-effectiveness of an HPV self-collection campaign in Uganda: comparing models for delivery of cervical cancer screening in a low-income setting.

Nicole G Campos, Vivien Tsu, Jose Jeronimo, Denise Njama-Meya, Mercy Mvundura, Jane J Kim

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Nicole G CamposCenter for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, USA.
Vivien TsuPATH, Reproductive Health Global Program, P.O. Box 900922, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jose JeronimoPATH, Reproductive Health Global Program, P.O. Box 900922, Seattle, WA, USA.
Denise Njama-MeyaPATH Uganda, P.O. Box 7404, Kampala, Uganda.
Mercy MvunduraPATH, Devices and Tools Program, P.O. Box 900922, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jane J KimCenter for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the availability of a low-cost HPV DNA test that can be administered by either a healthcare provider or a woman herself, programme planners require information on the costs and cost-effectiveness of implementing cervical cancer screening programmes in low-resource settings under different models of healthcare delivery. Using data from the START-UP demonstration project and a micro-costing approach, we estimated the health and economic impact of once-in-a-lifetime HPV self-collection campaign relative to clinic-based provider-collection of HPV specimens in Uganda. We used an individual-based Monte Carlo simulation model of the natural history of HPV and cervical cancer to estimate lifetime health and economic outcomes associated with screening with HPV DNA testing once in a lifetime (clinic-based provider-collection vs a self-collection campaign). Test performance and cost data were obtained from the START-UP demonstration project using a micro-costing approach. Model outcomes included lifetime risk of cervical cancer, total lifetime costs (in 2011 international dollars [I$]), and life expectancy. Cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). When both strategies achieved 75% population coverage, ICERs were below Uganda's per capita GDP (self-collection: I$80 per year of life saved [YLS]; provider-collection: I$120 per YLS). When the self-collection campaign achieved coverage gains of 15-20%, it was more effective than provider-collection, and had a lower ICER unless coverage with both strategies was 50% or less. Findings were sensitive to cryotherapy compliance among screen-positive women and relative HPV test performance. The primary limitation of this analysis is that self-collection costs are based on a hypothetical campaign but are based on unit costs from Uganda. Once-in-a-lifetime screening with HPV self-collection may be very cost-effective and reduce cervical cancer risk by > 20% if coverage is high. Demonstration projects will be needed to confirm the validity of our logistical, costing and compliance assumptions.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdultColposcopyCryosurgeryEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHuman Papillomavirus DNA TestsHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMonte Carlo MethodUgandaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCancercervical screeningcost-effectiveness analysisdecision makingwomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID28369405
PMCPMC5886074

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.