Cost-Effectiveness of 21 Alternative Cervical Cancer Screening Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of 21 alternative cervical cancer screening (CCS) strategies. METHODS: A cohort simulation model was developed to determine from a health systems perspective the cost-effectiveness of the 21 alternative CCS strategies that incorporated combinations of Papanicolaou's smear test (PAP), liquid-based cytology (LBC) or human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid (HPV-DNA) testing. The model was calibrated to categorize total costs into four budgetary authorities: testing, physician, inpatient, and outpatient services. Within each category, alternative screening strategies were contrasted in terms of their cost impacts and the percent change calculated within each category. Epidemiologic data and costs were derived from administrative health databases. Estimates of test characteristics and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from available literature. RESULTS: Three-year screening with PAP and HPV-DNA triage testing for women older than 30 years of age (3-year PAP+HPV+PAP-age) is less costly and more effective saving $16,078 per additional QALY gained. Although there was an associated net cost decrease of 4.2% driven by a reduction in testing and physician costs of 22.1% and 18.6%, respectively, there is a cost increase of 0.8% and 27.7% in inpatient and outpatient services, respectively. CONCLUSION: There is economic evidence to support adopting 3-year PAP+HPV+PAP-age. Budgetary resources can potentially be shifted from testing and physician services to fund the additional resource requirements for inpatient and outpatient services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".