Economic evaluation of screening for open angle glaucoma

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening for open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in the United Kingdom, given that OAG is an important cause of blindness worldwide. Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and benefits of a cohort of patients facing, alternatively, screening or current opportunistic case finding strategies. Strategies, varying in how screening would be organized (e.g., invitation for assessment by a glaucoma-trained optometrist [GO] or for simple test assessment by a technician) were developed, and allowed for the progression of OAG and treatment effects. Data inputs were obtained from systematic reviews. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Screening was more likely to be cost-effective as prevalence increased, for 40 year olds compared with 60 or 75 year olds, when the re-screening interval was greater (10 years), and for the technician strategy compared with the GO strategy. For each age cohort and at prevalence levels of ≤1 percent, the likelihood that either screening strategy would be more cost-effective than current practice was small. For those 40 years of age, “technician screening” compared with current practice has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that society might be willing to pay when prevalence is 6 percent to 10 percent and at over 10 percent for 60 year olds. In the United Kingdom, the age specific prevalence of OAG is much lower. Screening by GO, at any age or prevalence level, was not associated with an ICER < £30,000. Conclusions: Population screening for OAG is unlikely to be cost-effective but could be for specific subgroups at higher risk.This study was developed from a health technology assessment on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of screening for open-angle glaucoma (OAG), funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (project no. 04/08/02).Peer reviewedAuthor versio

The Psychosocial Effects of the Li-Fraumeni Education and Early Detection (LEAD) Program on Indivdiuals with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome

Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a hereditary cancer syndrome that leads to an increased risk of multiple cancers. In the past five years new screening protocols have been developed that provide improved screening options for individuals with LFS. However, very little has been published on the psychosocial impact of these screening protocols. The goals of this study were to determine how participation in screening impacts individuals psychosocially, to examine the benefits and drawbacks of screening, and to evaluate possible barriers to continued screening. This qualitative study consisted of phone interviews with 20 individuals that took part in an LFS screening program at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Data analysis showed that benefits of screening include early detection, peace of mind, centralized screening, knowledge providing power, and screening making LFS seem more livable. Perceived drawbacks included logistical issues, difficulty navigating the system, screening being draining, and significant negative emotional reactions such as anxiety, fear, and skepticism. Regardless of the emotions that were present, 100% of participants plan on continuing screening in the program. Our data indicates that the perceived benefits of screening outweigh the drawbacks of screening. Individuals in this screening program appear to have improved psychosocial well-being because of their access to the screening program

First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down's syndrome

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain how best to screen pregnant women for the presence of fetal Down's syndrome: to perform first-trimester screening, to perform second-trimester screening, or to use strategies incorporating measurements in both trimesters.METHODS: Women with singleton pregnancies underwent first-trimester combined screening (measurement of nuchal translucency, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A [PAPP-A], and the free beta subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin at 10 weeks 3 days through 13 weeks 6 days of gestation) and second-trimester quadruple screening (measurement of alpha-fetoprotein, total human chorionic gonadotropin, unconjugated estriol, and inhibin A at 15 through 18 weeks of gestation). We compared the results of stepwise sequential screening (risk results provided after each test), fully integrated screening (single risk result provided), and serum integrated screening (identical to fully integrated screening, but without nuchal translucency).RESULTS: First-trimester screening was performed in 38,167 patients; 117 had a fetus with Down's syndrome. At a 5 percent false positive rate, the rates of detection of Down's syndrome were as follows: with first-trimester combined screening, 87 percent, 85 percent, and 82 percent for measurements performed at 11, 12, and 13 weeks, respectively; with second-trimester quadruple screening, 81 percent; with stepwise sequential screening, 95 percent; with serum integrated screening, 88 percent; and with fully integrated screening with first-trimester measurements performed at 11 weeks, 96 percent. Paired comparisons found significant differences between the tests, except for the comparison between serum integrated screening and combined screening.CONCLUSIONS: First-trimester combined screening at 11 weeks of gestation is better than second-trimester quadruple screening but at 13 weeks has results similar to second-trimester quadruple screening. Both stepwise sequential screening and fully integrated screening have high rates of detection of Down's syndrome, with low false positive rates

Barriers to cervical screening participation in high-risk women

Aim Women aged 25–35 years, for whom cervical cancer is most problematic, are least likely to participate in the cervical screening programme. Therefore, identifying barriers to screening participation in this high-risk group is essential. Subject and methods A sample of 430 women completed an electronic survey of their cervical screening history and answered questions on sociodemographic, behavioural, attitudinal and informational barriers to cervical screening uptake. Logistic regression was used to predict cervical screening non attendance. Results Women with more than 10 sexual partners in their lifetime were more likely, but women from ethnic minorities, less likely to participate in the cervical screening programme. Women unaware of the recommended screening interval were also less likely to be screened, as were women who believed that screening is a test for cancer. Screening was also less likely among women who endorsed the belief that screening in the absence of symptoms is unnecessary. Conclusion These data highlight poor knowledge of the recommended screening interval and purpose of cervical cancer screening in this high-risk group. As such, interventions that target these informational barriers might be most effective for increasing cervical screening uptake in this high-risk group

Prenatal Screening and Genetics

Although the term 'genetic screening' has been used for decades, this paper discusses how, in its most precise meaning, genetic screening has not yet been widely introduced. 'Prenatal screening' is often confused with 'genetic screening'. As we show, these terms have different meanings, and we examine definitions of the relevant concepts in order to illustrate this point. The concepts are i) prenatal, ii) genetic screening, iii) screening, scanning and testing, iv) maternal and foetal tests, v) test techniques and vi) genetic conditions. So far, prenatal screening has little connection with precisely defined genetics. There are benefits but also disadvantages in overstating current links between them in the term genetic screening. Policy making and professional and public understandings about screening could be clarified if the distinct meanings of prenatal screening and genetic screening were more precisely observed

Implementation of the Vermont Mini-Cog

Cognitive impairment screening is important for early detection, diagnosis, and treatment of cognitive impairment and dementia. Additionally, screening is mandated as part of the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit. Colchester Family Medicine providers were surveyed about their current screening behaviors and then provided a training session on cognitive impairment screening and the Vermont Mini-Cog screening tool. Post-training, providers were surveyed about their likely future screening practices.https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/fmclerk/1540/thumbnail.jp

Breast, colon, and prostate screening in the adult population of Croatia: does rural origin matter?

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the utilization of breast, colon and prostate cancer screening in the adult Croatian population in a period without national cancer screening programs, with a special interest in respondents' rural versus urban origin. ----- METHODS: Self-reported screening utilization was investigated in the Croatian Adult Health Survey, which collected health-related information from a representative sample of the adult Croatian population. Breast cancer screening was investigated in women aged over 40 years, while colon and prostate screening was investigated in respondents aged over 50 years. The data were analysed using binary logistic regression. ----- RESULTS: One in five women reported breast cancer screening uptake in the year preceding the survey (22.5%), while only 4.5% reported a colon screening. A total of 6.1% men reported colon screening, while 13.7% of men reported having a prostate cancer screening. Respondents with rural origin reported all sites screening utilization less frequently than those of urban origin (breast: 14.5% vs 27.4%; prostate: 9.6% vs 16.3%; colon-men: 5.7% vs 6.3%; colon-women: 3.6% vs 5.1%; respectively). Multivariable models indicated that people with higher socio-economic status more commonly reported breast and prostate cancer screening uptake. Access to health care was the only independent variable associated with colon cancer screening in men, and the strongest variable associated with colon cancer screening in women. Rural origin was associated only with lower odds of breast screening (adjusted odds ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval 0.48-0.74]), while in the remaining models, rural origin was not a significant predictor for cancer screening uptake. ----- CONCLUSIONS: Opportunistic cancer screening uptake is low in the Croatian adult population, with existing socio-economic differences in breast and prostate screening, and their absence in colon cancer screening. Rural origin was significantly associated with breast screening, even after adjustment to socioeconomic status and problems in access to health care. Lack of rural origin significance in the other screening sites could be related to small sample sizes of people who reported opportunistic utilization. Overall, access to health care is the strongest cancer screening predictor, and this should have a prominent role in the development of a systematic cancer screening program on a national level

The cost-utility of telemedicine to screen for diabetic retinopathy in India.

PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a telemedicine diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening program in rural Southern India that conducts 1-off screening camps (i.e., screening offered once) in villages and to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of different screening intervals. DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis using a Markov model. PARTICIPANTS: A hypothetical cohort of 1000 rural diabetic patients aged 40 years who had not been previously screened for DR and who were followed over a 25-year period in Chennai, India. METHODS: We interviewed 249 people with diabetes using the time trade-off method to estimate utility values associated with DR. Patient and provider costs of telemedicine screening and hospital-based DR treatment were estimated through interviews with 100 diabetic patients, sampled when attending screening in rural camps (n = 50) or treatment at the base hospital in Chennai (n = 50), and with program and hospital managers. The sensitivity and specificity of the DR screening test were assessed in comparison with diagnosis using a gold standard method for 346 diabetic patients. Other model parameters were derived from the literature. A Markov model was developed in TreeAge Pro 2009 (TreeAge Software Inc, Williamstown, MA) using these data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from the current teleophthalmology program of 1-off screening in comparison with no screening program and the cost-utility of this program at different screening intervals. RESULTS: By using the World Health Organization threshold of cost-effectiveness, the current rural teleophthalmology program was cost-effective ($1320 per QALY) compared with no screening from a health provider perspective. Screening intervals of up to a frequency of screening every 2 years also were cost-effective, but annual screening was not (>$3183 per QALY). From a societal perspective, telescreening up to a frequency of once every 5 years was cost-effective, but not more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: From a health provider perspective, a 1-off DR telescreening program is cost-effective compared with no screening in this rural Indian setting. Increasing the frequency of screening up to 2 years also is cost-effective. The results are dependent on the administrative costs of establishing and maintaining screening at regular intervals and on achieving sufficient coverage

Comparison of breast and bowel cancer screening uptake patterns in a common cohort of South Asian women in England

Background: Inequalities in uptake of cancer screening by ethnic minority populations are well documented in a number of international studies. However, most studies to date have explored screening uptake for a single cancer only. This paper compares breast and bowel cancer screening uptake for a cohort of South Asian women invited to undertake both, and similarly investigates these women's breast cancer screening behaviour over a period of fifteen years. Methods: Screening data for rounds 1, 2 and 5 (1989-2004) of the NHS breast cancer screening programme and for round 1 of the NHS bowel screening pilot (2000-2002) were obtained for women aged 50-69 resident in the English bowel screening pilot site, Coventry and Warwickshire, who had been invited to undertake breast and bowel cancer screening in the period 2000-2002. Breast and bowel cancer screening uptake levels were calculated and compared using the chi-squared test. Results: 72,566 women were invited to breast and bowel cancer screening after exclusions. Of these, 3,539 were South Asian and 69,027 non-Asian; 18,730 had been invited to mammography over the previous fifteen years (rounds 1 to 5). South Asian women were significantly less likely to undertake both breast and bowel cancer screening; 29.9% (n = 1,057) compared to 59.4% (n = 40,969) for non-Asians (p < 0.001). Women in both groups who consistently chose to undertake breast cancer screening in rounds 1, 2 and 5 were more likely to complete round 1 bowel cancer screening. However, the likelihood of completion of bowel cancer screening was still significantly lower for South Asians; 49.5% vs. 82.3% for non-Asians, p < 0.001. South Asian women who undertook breast cancer screening in only one round were no more likely to complete bowel cancer screening than those who decided against breast cancer screening in all three rounds. In contrast, similar women in the non-Asian population had an increased likelihood of completing the new bowel cancer screening test. The likelihood of continued uptake of mammography after undertaking screening in round 1 differed between South Asian religio-linguistic groups. Noticeably, women in the Muslim population were less likely to continue to participate in mammography than those in other South Asian groups. Conclusions: Culturally appropriate targeted interventions are required to reduce observed disparities in cancer screening uptakes

PreView: a Randomized Trial of a Multi-site Intervention in Diverse Primary Care to Increase Rates of Age-Appropriate Cancer Screening.

BackgroundWomen aged 50-70 should receive breast, cervical (until age 65), and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening; men aged 50-70 should receive CRC screening and should discuss prostate cancer screening (PSA). PreView, an interactive, individually tailored Video Doctor Plus Provider Alert Intervention, adresses all cancers for which average risk 50-70-year-old individuals are due for screening or screening discussion.MethodsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial in 6 clinical sites. Participants were randomized to PreView or a video about healthy lifestyle. Intervention group participants completed PreView before their appointment and their clinicians received a "Provider Alert." Primary outcomes were receipt of mammography, Pap tests (with or without HPV testing), CRC screening (FIT in last year or colonoscopy in last 10 years), and PSA screening discussion. Additional outcomes included breast, cervical, and CRC screening discussion.ResultsA total of 508 individuals participated, 257 in the control group and 251 in the intervention group. Screening rates were relatively high at baseline. Compared with baseline screening rates, there was no significant increase in mammography or Pap smear screening, and a nonsignificant increase (18% vs 12%) in CRC screening. Intervention participants reported a higher rate of PSA discussion than did control participants (58% vs 36%: P &lt; 0.01). Similar increases were seen in discussions about mammography, cervical cancer, and CRC screening.ConclusionIn clinics with relatively high overall screening rates at baseline, PreView did not result in significant increases in breast, cervical, or CRC screening. PreView led to an increase in PSA screening discussion. Clinician-patient discussion of all cancer screenings significantly increased, suggesting that interventions like PreView may be most useful when discussion of the pros and cons of screening is recommended and/or with patients reluctant to undergo screening. Future research should investigate PreView's impact on those who are hesitant or reluctant to undergo screening.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02264782