This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (13) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Andersen, M. R. Articles by Urban, N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Andersen, M. R. Articles by Urban, N. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of Mammography Promotion by Volunteers in Rural Communities

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washingtonrander{at}fhcrc.org

Michelle Hager, BS

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington

Celina Su, BA

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

Nicole Urban, ScD

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington

The Community Trial of Breast Cancer Screening Promotion assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mammography promotion by community volunteer groups in rural areas using three different intervention approaches: individual counseling, community activities, and a combined intervention including both. Societal costs of the interventions were calculated and used in conjunction with measures of effectiveness to calculate cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per additional mammogram and cost per year of life saved. Methods of collecting and using cost information to assess the cost-effectiveness of community interventions are described. The Community Activities intervention was found to be the most cost-effective, at approximately $2,000 for each additional regular mammography user in the community. The cost per year of life saved associated with mammography promotion was approximately $56,000 per year of life saved. Exploratory analyses suggest that the most cost-effective method of promoting mammography use may vary with the target population.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Paskett, C. Tatum, J. Rushing, R. Michielutte, R. Bell, K. L. Foley, M. Bittoni, S. L. Dickinson, A. S. McAlearney, and K. Reeves Randomized trial of an intervention to improve mammography utilization among a triracial rural population of women. J Natl Cancer Inst, September 6, 2006; 98(17): 1226 - 1237. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. R. Lairson, Y.-C. Chang, J. L. Bettencourt, S. W. Vernon, and A. Greisinger Estimating Development Cost for a Tailored Interactive Computer Program to Enhance Colorectal Cancer Screening Compliance J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., September 1, 2006; 13(5): 476 - 484. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. S. Wolf, K. A. Fitzner, E. F. Powell, K. R. McCaffrey, A. S. Pickard, J. M. McKoy, J. Lindenberg, G. T. Schumock, K. R. Carson, M. R. Ferreira, et al. Costs and Cost Effectiveness of a Health Care Provider-Directed Intervention to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Veterans J. Clin. Oncol., December 1, 2005; 23(34): 8877 - 8883. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. G. Roetzheim, L. K. Christman, P. B. Jacobsen, A. B. Cantor, J. Schroeder, R. Abdulla, S. Hunter, T. N. Chirikos, and J. P. Krischer A Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Cancer Screening Among Attendees of Community Health Centers Ann. Fam. Med, July 1, 2004; 2(4): 294 - 300. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. M. Linden, S. Ramsey, and N. Anderson An Ounce of Prevention or a Pound of Cure? Investing to Improve Breast Cancer Outcomes for African American Women J. Clin. Oncol., July 1, 2004; 22(13): 2517 - 2518. [Full Text] [PDF]