Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29801496›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2018

Cost of HPV screening at community health campaigns (CHCs) and health clinics in rural Kenya.

Jennifer Shen, Easter Olwanda, James G Kahn, Megan J Huchko

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. HPV-based cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings: Maximizing the efficiency of community-based strategies in rural Kenya.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2020
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jennifer ShenPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, 3333 California Street Suite 265, Box 0936, San Francisco, CA, 94118, USA. jennifer.shen@ucsf.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0130-2479
Easter OlwandaDuke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
James G KahnPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, 3333 California Street Suite 265, Box 0936, San Francisco, CA, 94118, USA.
Megan J HuchkoDuke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Duke University · USLee University · US

Funding

Evaluating a community-driven cervical cancer prevention model in western KenyaR01CA188428 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HUCHKO, MEGAN J. · 2014 to 2018
$2.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01-CA188248NCI NIH HHS R01 CA188428
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer is the most frequent neoplasm among Kenyan women, with 4800 diagnoses and 2400 deaths per year. One reason is an extremely low rate of screening through pap smears, at 13.8% in 2014. Knowing the costs of screening will help planners and policymakers design, implement, and scale programs.

methodsWe conducted HPV-based cervical cancer screening via self-collection in 12 communities in rural Migori County, Kenya. Six communities were randomized to community health campaigns (CHCs), and six to screening at government clinics. All HPV-positive women were referred for cryotherapy at Migori County Hospital. We prospectively estimated direct costs from the health system perspective, using micro-costing methods. Cost data were extracted from expenditure records, staff interviews, and time and motion logs. Total costs per woman screening included three activities: outreach, HPV-based screening, and notification. Types of inputs include personnel, recurrent goods, capital goods, and services. We costed potential changes to implementation for scaling.

resultsFrom January to September 2016, 2899 women were screened in CHCs and 2042 in clinics. Each CHC lasted for 30 working days, 10 days each for outreach, screening, and notification. The mean cost per woman screened was $25.00 for CHCs [median: $25.09; Range: $22.06-30.21] and $29.56 for clinics [$28.90; $25.27-37.08]. Clinics had higher costs than CHCs for personnel ($14.27 vs. $11.26) and capital ($5.55 vs. $2.80). Screening costs were higher for clinics at $21.84, compared to $17.48 for CHCs. In contrast, CHCs had higher outreach costs ($3.34 vs. $0.17). After modeling a reduction in staffing, clinic per-screening costs ($25.69) were approximately equivalent to CHCs.

conclusionsHPV-based cervical cancer screening through community health campaigns achieved lower costs per woman screened, compared to screening at clinics. Periodic high-volume CHCs appear to be a viable low-cost strategy for implementing cervical cancer screening.

Indexed as

AdultAmbulatory Care FacilitiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Care CostsHealth PromotionHumansKenyaMiddle AgedPapanicolaou TestRural Health ServicesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsCervical cancer screeningHPV testingMicro-costingRural Kenya

Identifiers

PMID29801496
PMCPMC5970469
OpenAlexW2807531130

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.