Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Grant, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Grant, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Public Health Medicine 21:140-144 (1999)
© 1999 Faculty of Public Health Medicine of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom

Cervical screening interval: costing the options in one health authority


CM Grant

Division of Primary Health Care, Canynge Hall, Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2PR, UK

Background This is a study of the costs of the cervical screening programme in one health authority with a mixed three and five year, and thus inequitable, cervical screening interval. The costs of three year and five yearly screenings are compared, and considered in terms of likely numbers of averted cases of and deaths from cervical cancer.

Methods The study uses an activity-based costing procedure to calculate the component and total costs of the cervical screening programme.

Results The main costs of the cervical screening programme are the costs of taking and processing smears. In 1994-1995 the total cost of a three year recall policy was £768 570 per 100 000 eligible women and that of a five year recall policy was £476 768 per 100 000 eligible women. Best estimates of the numbers of cases of and deaths from invasive cervical cancer averted by three over five yearly screening are 1.4 and 0.7 per 100 000 eligible women, respectively. Because of uncertainty regarding colposcopy costs a sensitivity analysis was carried out, giving a range of cost differences between three and five yearly screening of £278 477 and £351 768.

Conclusions The health service costs of three yearly screening are considerably greater than those of five yearly screening. Despite this, a significant proportion of smear-takers are screening more frequently than five yearly, with implications for anxiety of screened women, as well as health service costs.

Keywords: cervical screening, activity-based costing, sensitivity analysis


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.