SynthesisJournal of medical screening2018
Cost-effectiveness of strategies to increase cervical screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC).
Synthesis in Journal of medical screening, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness studies evaluating HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening - a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved women in Europe.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024Pooled it
- The Acceptance of Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling Test among Muslim Women:A Systematic Review.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Pooled it
- Cost and effects of integrated care: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness studies of HPV self-sampling: A systematic review.Preventive medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of repeated self-sampling for HPV testing in primary cervical screening: a randomized study.BMC cancer · 2020Trial
- Preferences for interventions designed to increase cervical screening uptake in non-attending young women: How findings from a discrete choice experiment compare with observed behaviours in a trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Trial
- Cost-effectiveness and equity impact of complex primary care interventions for disadvantaged populations.BJGP open · 2026Article
- Cost and cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer HPV DNA self-sampling: a systematic review.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating Opt-In Vaginal Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling: Participation Rates and Detection of High-Grade Lesions (CIN2+) among Unscreened Japanese Women Aged 30-39.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- 'Oh, I've got an appointment': A qualitative interview study exploring how to support attendance at diabetes screening after gestational diabetes.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of strategies to increase cervical cancer screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC trial). Methods We performed an economic analysis alongside the STRATEGIC trial, comparing each of seven novel interventions for improving cervical screening uptake with control general practices in Greater Manchester and Grampian (United Kingdom). A template was developed to measure the intervention costs. Trial estimates of screening uptake were combined with data from the literature to estimate healthcare costs of each intervention. The added lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of attending cervical screening were estimated by a systematic literature review, with relevant results pooled and weighted by study quality. Trial results and estimated lifetime costs and benefits of screening were then combined in a decision analytic model, giving an incremental cost per QALY gained for each intervention. Uncertainty was addressed in probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses. Results Intervention costs per screening round per woman attending varied from about £1.20 (2014 UK) for the nurse navigator intervention to £62 for the unrequested HPV self-sampler kit. The meta-analysis revealed a lifetime discounted benefit from screening of 0.043 QALYs per woman attending, at an additional lifetime discounted cost of £234. The incremental cost per QALY gained in all interventions was below £13,000. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that only unrequested self-sampling and timed appointments have a high probability of being cost-effective. Conclusions Unrequested self-sampling and timed appointments are likely to be cost-effective interventions. Further research is required on the duration of effects and on implementing combinations of interventions.
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.