Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Leveraging Social Determinants of Health to Improve Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers in the United States has remained below the Healthy People 2020 goals, with evidence indicating that persistent screening disparities still exist. The US Department of Health and Human Services has emphasized cross-sectoral collaboration in aligning social determinants of health with public health and medical services. Examining the economics of intervening through these novel methods in the realm of cancer screening can inform program planners, health care providers, implementers, and policy makers.

Objective

To conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions leveraging social determinants of health to improve screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer to guide implementation.

Evidence review

A systematic literature search for economic evidence was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Global Health, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, EconLit, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), and Sociological Abstracts from January 1, 2004, to November 25, 2019. Included studies intervened on social determinants of health to improve breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the United States and reported intervention cost, incremental cost per additional person screened, and/or incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Risk of bias was assessed along with qualitative assessment of quality to ensure complete reporting of economic measures, data sources, and analytic methods. In addition, included studies with modeled outcomes had to define structural elements and sources for input parameters, distinguish between programmatic and literature-derived data, and assess uncertainty.

Findings

Thirty unique articles with 94 706 real and 4.21 million simulated participants satisfied our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The median intervention cost per participant was $123.87 (interquartile interval [IQI], $24.44-$313.19; 34 estimates). The median incremental cost per additional person screened was $250.37 (IQI, $44.67-$609.38; 17 estimates). Studies that modeled final economic outcomes had a median incremental cost per person of $122.96 (IQI, $46.96-$124.80; 5 estimates), a median incremental screening rate of 15% (IQI, 14%-20%; 5 estimates), and a median incremental QALY per person of 0.04 years (IQI, 0.006-0.06 year; 5 estimates). The median incremental cost per QALY gained of $3120.00 (IQI, $782.59-$33 600.00; 5 estimates) was lower than $50 000, an established, conservative threshold of cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions and relevance

Interventions focused on social determinants of health to improve breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening appear to be cost-effective for underserved, vulnerable populations in the United States. The increased screening rates were associated with earlier diagnosis and treatment and in improved health outcomes with significant gains in QALYs. These findings represent the latest economic evidence to guide implementation of these interventions, which serve the dual purpose of enhancing health equity and economic efficiency.

SUBMITTER: Mohan G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7857975 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Despite advances in cancer treatment and cancer-related outcomes, disparities in cancer mortality remain. Lower rates of cancer prevention screening and consequent delays in diagnosis may exacerbate these disparities. Better understanding of the association between area-level social determinants of health and cancer screening may be helpful to increase screening rates. Objective:To examine the association between area deprivation, rurality, and screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer in patients from an integrated health care delivery system in 3 US Midwest states (Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin). Design, Setting, and Participants:In this cross-sectional study of adults receiving primary care at 75 primary care practices in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, rates of recommended breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening completion were ascertained using electronic health records between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017. The area deprivation index (ADI) is a composite measure of social determinants of health composed of 17 US Census indicators and was calculated for all census block groups in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin (11?230 census block groups). Rurality was defined at the zip code level. Using multivariable logistic regression, this study examined the association between the ADI, rurality, and completion of cancer screening after adjusting for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, race, and sex (for colorectal cancer only). Main Outcomes and Measures:Completion of recommended breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. Results:The study cohorts were composed of 78?302 patients eligible for breast cancer screening (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [7.1] years), 126?731 patients eligible for cervical cancer screening (mean [SD] age, 42.6 [13.2] years), and 145?550 patients eligible for colorectal cancer screening (mean [SD] age, 62.4 [7.0] years; 52.9% [77?048 of 145?550] female). The odds of completing recommended screening were decreased for individuals living in the most deprived (highest ADI) census block group quintile compared with the least deprived (lowest ADI) quintile: the odds ratios were 0.51 (95% CI, 0.46-0.57) for breast cancer, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.54-0.62) for cervical cancer, and 0.57 (95% CI, 0.53-0.61) for colorectal cancer. Individuals living in rural areas compared with urban areas also had lower rates of cancer screening: the odds ratios were 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.79) for breast cancer, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.83) for cervical cancer, and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96) for colorectal cancer. Conclusions and Relevance:Individuals living in areas of greater deprivation and rurality had lower rates of recommended cancer screening, signaling the need for effective intervention strategies that may include improved community partnerships and patient engagement to enhance access to screening in highest-risk populations.

Project description:BackgroundScreening participation remains suboptimal in cervical cancer (CC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening despite their effectiveness in reducing cancer-related morbidity and mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of an intervention by leveraging the high participation rate in breast cancer (BC) screening as an opportunity to offer self-sampling kits to nonparticipants in CC and CRC screening.Methods and findingsA pragmatic, unblinded, cluster-randomised, multiple period, crossover trial was conducted in 5 BC screening units in the Central Denmark Region (CDR) between September 1, 2021 and May 25, 2022. On each of 100 selected weekdays, 1 BC screening unit was randomly allocated as the intervention unit while the remaining units served as controls. Women aged 50 to 69 years attending BC screening at the intervention unit were offered administrative check-up on their CC screening status (ages 50 to 64 years) and CRC screening status (aged 50 to 69), and women with overdue screening were offered self-sampling. Women in the control group received only standard screening offers according to the organised programmes. The primary outcomes were differences between the intervention group and the control group in the total screening coverage for the 2 programmes and in screening participation among women with overdue screening, measured 6 months after the intervention. These were assessed using intention-to-treat analysis, reporting risk differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 27,116 women were included in the trial, with 5,618 (20.7%) in the intervention group and 21,498 (79.3%) in the control group. Six months after the intervention, total coverage was higher in the intervention group as compared with the control group in CC screening (88.3 versus 83.5, difference 4.8 percentage points, 95% CI [3.6, 6.0]; p < 0.001) and in CRC screening (79.8 versus 76.0, difference 3.8 percentage points, 95% CI [2.6, 5.1]; p < 0.001). Among women overdue with CC screening, participation in the intervention group was 32.0% compared with 6.1% in the control group (difference 25.8 percentage points, 95% CI [22.0, 29.6]; p < 0.001). In CRC screening, participation among women overdue with screening in the intervention group was 23.8% compared with 8.9% in the control group (difference 14.9 percentage points, 95% CI [12.3, 17.5]; p < 0.001). Women who did not participate in BC screening were not included in this study.ConclusionsOffering self-sampling to women overdue with CC and CRC screening when they attend BC screening was a feasible intervention, resulting in an increase in participation and total coverage. Other interventions are required to reach women who are not participating in BC screening.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05022511. The record of processing activities for research projects in the Central Denmark Region (R. No.: 1-16-02-217-21).

Project description:BACKGROUND: With 14.234 diagnoses and over 4047 deaths reported in 2007, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer and second most common cause of cancer-related mortality in Australia. The direct treatment cost has recently been estimated to be around AU$1.2 billion for the year 2011, which corresponds to a four-fold increase, compared the cost reported in 2001. Excluding CRCs due to known rare genetic disorders, 20% to 25% of all CRCs occur in a familial aggregation setting due to genetic variants or shared environmental risk factors that are yet to be characterised. A targeted screening strategy addressed to this segment of the population is a potentially valuable tool for reducing the overall burden of CRC. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of three screening strategies offered to people at increased risk due to a strong family history of CRC. The model simulated the evolution of a cohort of 10,000 individuals from age 50 to 90 years. We compared screening with biennial iFOBT, five-yearly colonoscopy and ten-yearly colonoscopy versus the current strategy of the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (i.e. base case). RESULTS: Under the NBCSP scenario, 6,491 persons developed CRC with an average screening lifetime cost of AU$3,441 per person. In comparison, screening with biennial iFOBT, colonoscopy every ten years, and colonoscopy every five years reduced CRC incidence by 27%, 35% and 60%, and mortality by 15%, 26% and 46% respectively. All three screening strategies had a cost under AU$50,000 per life year gained, which is regarded as the upper limit of acceptable cost-effectiveness in the Australian health system. At AU$12,405 per life year gained and an average lifetime expectancy of 16.084 years, five-yearly colonoscopy screening was the most cost-effective strategy. CONCLUSION: The model demonstrates that intensive CRC screening strategies targeting people at increased risk would be cost-effective in the Australian context. Our findings provide evidence that substantial health benefits can be generated from risk-based CRC screening at a relatively modest incremental cost.

Project description:ObjectiveAccording to the third cancer plan, organised screening (OS) of cervical cancer (CC) among women aged 25-65 years should be implemented in France in the forthcoming years. The most efficient way to implement OS in the French healthcare system is yet to be determined.MethodsA microsimulation model was developed adopting a collective 'all payers' perspective. A closed cohort of women eligible for CC screening and representative in terms of age and participation in individual screening (IndScr) by annual Papanicolaou (Pap) testing every 3 years was modelled on a lifetime horizon. Different OS strategies, additive to IndScr with a 61.9% participation rate based on mailed invitations to non-participant women to perform OS were assessed. Similar modalities were applied to OS and IndScr participants. Strategies implied different screening tests (Papanicolaou (Pap) test, human papillomavirus (HPV) test and p16/Ki67 double staining) and OS periodicity.ResultsCompared with IndScr only, all OS strategies were associated with decreased cancer incidence/mortality (from 14.2%/13.5% to 22.9%/25.8%). Most strategies generated extra costs ranging from €37.9 to €1607 per eligible woman. HPV testing every 10 and 5 years were cost saving. HPV tests every 10 and 5 years were the most efficient strategies, generating more survival at lower costs than Pap-based strategies. Compared to IndScr only, an HPV test every 10 years was cost saving. The most effective strategies were p16/Ki67 as primary or HPV positive confirmation tests, with respective incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €6 541 250 and €101 391 per life year. Pap-based strategies generated intermediary results.ConclusionOS strategies based on the HPV test appear highly efficient. However, our results rely on the assumption that women and practitioners comply with the recommended OS periodicities (3, 5, 10 years). Implementing these OS modalities will require major adaptations to the current CC screening organisation. Pap test-based strategies might be simpler to setup while preparing an appropriate implementation of more efficient OS screening modalities.