Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cost Effective Analysis of Recall Methods for Cervical Cancer Screening in Selangor - Results from a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Abdul Rashid, Rima Marhayu (Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University, of Malaya) ;
  • Ramli, Sophia (Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University, of Malaya) ;
  • John, Jennifer (Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University, of Malaya) ;
  • Dahlui, Maznah (Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University, of Malaya)
  • Published : 2014.07.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Cervical cancer screening in Malaysia is by opportunistic Pap smear which contributes to the low uptake rate. To overcome this, a pilot project called the SIPPS program (translated as information system of Pap smear program) had been introduced whereby women aged 20-65 years old are invited for Pap smear and receive recall to repeat the test. This study aimed at determining which recall method is most cost-effective in getting women to repeat Pap smear. A randomised control trial was conducted where one thousand women were recalled for repeat smear either by registered letter, phone messages, phone call or the usual postal letter. The total cost applied for cost-effectiveness analysis includes the cost of sending letter for first invitation, cost of the recall method and cost of two Pap smears. Cost-effective analysis (CEA) of Pap smear uptake by each recall method was then performed. The uptake of Pap smear by postal letter, registered letters, SMS and phone calls were 18.8%, 20.0%, 21.6% and 34.4%, respectively (p<0.05). The CER for the recall method was lowest by phone call compared to other interventions; RM 69.18 (SD RM 0.14) compared to RM 106.53 (SD RM 0.13), RM 134.02 (SD RM 0.15) and RM 136.38 (SD RM 0.11) for SMS, registered letter and letter, respectively. ICER showed that it is most cost saving if the usual method of recall by postal letter be changed to recall by phone call. The possibility of letter as a recall for repeat Pap smear to reach the women is higher compared to sending SMS or making phone call. However, getting women to do repeat Pap smear is better with phone call which allows direct communication. Despite the high cost of the phone call as a recall method for repeat Pap smear, it is the most cost-effective method compared to others.

Keywords

References

  1. Aljunid S, Zafar A, Saperi S, et al (2010). Burden of disease associated with cervical cancer in Malaysia and potential costs and consequences of HPV vaccination. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 11, 1551-9.
  2. Baskaran P, Subramanian P, Rahman RA, et al (2013). Perceived susceptibility, and cervical cancer screening benefits and barriers in Malaysian women visiting outpatient clinics. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 7693-9. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.12.7693
  3. Cancerresearchuk.org. (2012). Cervical cancer survival statistics. Retrieved 27 March 2013, from Cancer Research UK http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/cervix/survival/cervical-cancer-survival-statistics
  4. Canfell K, Sitas F, Beral V (2006). Cervical cancer in australia and the united kingdom: comparison of screening policy and uptake, and cancer incidence and mortality. Medical J Australia, 185, 482-6.
  5. Curado MP, Edwards B, Shin HR, et al (2007). Cancer Incidence in Five Continents, Vol. Ix. Iarc Scientific Publication, Lyon, France: International Agency For Research On Cancer, 160, 961.
  6. Eaker S, Adami HO, Granath F (2004). A large population-based randomized controlled trial to increase attendance at screening for cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 13, 346-54.
  7. Ferlay J, Bray F, Pisani P, et al (2004). GLOBOCAN 2002. Cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worlwide. IARC CancerBase No.5.
  8. Heranney D, Fender M, Velten MW, et al (2011). A prospective randomized study of two reminding strategies: telephone versus mail in the screening of cervical cancer in women who did not initially respond. Acta Cytol, 55, 334-40. https://doi.org/10.1159/000327527
  9. Hou SI, Fernandez ME, Baumler E, et al (2002). Effectiveness of an intervention to increase pap test screening among chinese women in taiwan. J Community Health, 27, 277-290. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016382327769
  10. Ibrahim NSN (2005). Cost effectiveness of pap smear test for screening of cervical cancer. doktor kesihatan masyarakat, national university of malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
  11. Lim GCC and Halimah Y (Eds.). (2004). Second report of the national cancer registry. cancer incidence in Malaysia 2003. Kuala Lumpur: National Cancer Registry.
  12. Mohamed M (2008). SIPPS (Sistem Informasi Program Pap Smear): An innovation for population-based cervical cancer screening. Family Health Development Division, Ministry Of Health Malaysia.
  13. McDowell I, Newell C, Roser W (1989). Computerized reminders to encourage cervical screening in family practice. J Fam Pract, 28, 420-4.
  14. Omar ZA, Tamin NSI (2011). National cancer registry report. Malaysia cancer statistics-data and figure 2007. Ministry of Health Malaysia.
  15. Rashid RMA, Dahlui M, Mohamed M, et al (2013). Adapting the Australian system: is an organised screening program feasible in Malaysia?- An overview of the cervical cancer screening in both countries. Asia Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 2141-6. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.3.2141
  16. Sankaranarayanan R, Budukh AM, Rajkumar R (2001). Effective screening programmes for cervical cancer in low- and middle-income developing countries. Bull WHO, 79, 954-62.
  17. Stein K, Lewendon G, Jenkins R, et al (2005). Improving uptake of cervical cancer screening in women with prolonged history of non-attendance for screening: a randomized trial of enhanced invitation methods. J Med Screening, 12, 185-9. https://doi.org/10.1258/096914105775220741
  18. Vogt TM, Glass A, Glasgow RE, et al (2003). The safety net: a cost-effective approach to improving breast and cervical cancer screening. J Women's Health, 12, 789-98. https://doi.org/10.1089/154099903322447756
  19. WHO (2005). IARC Handbooks of cancer prevention. (Vol. 10). Lyon, France.
  20. Wong LP, Wong YL, Low WY, et al (2008). Cervical cancer screening attitudes and beliefs of malaysian women who have never had a pap smear: a qualitative study. Int J Behav Med, 15, 289-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705500802365490

Cited by

  1. Effectiveness of four outreach modalities to patients overdue for cervical cancer screening in the primary care setting: a randomized trial vol.27, pp.9, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-016-0786-6
  2. Forecasting the Value for Money of Mobile Maternal Health Information Messages on Improving Utilization of Maternal and Child Health Services in Gauteng, South Africa: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis vol.6, pp.7, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.8185
  3. Mobile Technology for Community Health in Ghana: Is Maternal Messaging and Provider Use of Technology Cost-Effective in Improving Maternal and Child Health Outcomes at Scale? vol.21, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.2196/11268