Re-interpreting the data on the cost and effectiveness of population screening for colorectal cancer in Australia
Graves, Nicholas, McKinnon, Loretta, Leggett, Barbara, & Newman, Beth M. (2005) Re-interpreting the data on the cost and effectiveness of population screening for colorectal cancer in Australia. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 2(10), pp. 1-9.
Three studies report estimates of the cost and effectiveness of alternate strategies for screening the average-risk Australian population for colorectal cancer. The options considered are faecal occult blood testing, double contrast barium enema, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. At present, there is no consensus over which screening method is optimal by the economic criterion. Also, the existing studies report a mixture of average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios derived from data collected between 1994 and 2002. We suggest average cost-effectiveness ratios are not useful for decision-making and illustrate how they differ from the preferred incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We then update the cost data reported in the three studies to 2002 prices and calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios where not previously available. Our re-analysis of one study contradicts the conclusions drawn by the authors, who had only calculated average costeffectiveness ratios. In particular, we find their recommendation of population screening with colonoscopy would cause, annually, between 33 and 1,322 years of life to be lost and between $M17 and $M87 to be wasted. Based on updated cost data and the incremental analysis, our findings indicate that population screening using biennial faecal occult blood testing ($39,459 per life-year gained), annual faecal occult blood testing ($30,556 per life-year gained) and colonoscopy ($26,587 per life-year gained) are cost-effective. Hence, the decision over which method of screening is optimal remains ambiguous across the three studies. We recommend policy-makers choose the study they believe produces the most accurate estimates of cost and health effect, identify their willingness to pay for health benefits and consider other issues relevant to the decision.
Impact and interest:
Citation countsare sourced monthly fromand citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from theindexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
Full-text downloadsdisplays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Additional Information:||The contents of this journal can be freely accessed online via the journal’s web page (see hypertext link).|
|Subjects:||Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES (110000) > PUBLIC HEALTH AND HEALTH SERVICES (111700)|
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES (110000)
|Divisions:||Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Health|
Current > Institutes > Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
|Copyright Owner:||Copyright 2005 BioMed Central Ltd.|
|Copyright Statement:||Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher.|
|Deposited On:||16 Jan 2008|
|Last Modified:||29 Feb 2012 23:14|
Repository Staff Only: item control page