Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia

Contents:

Author Info

  • Hall, Jane
  • Gerard, Karen
  • Salkeld, Glenn
  • Richardson, Jeff

Abstract

Cost utility analysis is the preferred method of analysis when quality of life instead is an important outcome of the project being appraised. However, there are several methodological issues to be resolved in implementing cost utility analysis, including whether to use generalised measures or direct disease specific outcome assessment, the choice of measurement technique, and the combination of different health states. Screening for breast cancer meets this criterion as mammographic screening has been shown to reduce mortality; and it is said that earlier treatment frequently results in less radical surgery so that women are offered the additional benefit of improved quality of life. Australia, like many other countries, has been debating whether to introduce a national mammographic screening programme. This paper presents the results of a cost utility analysis of breast cancer screening using an approach to measuring outcome, Healthy Year Equivalents, developed within this study to resolve these problems. Descriptions of breast cancer quality of life were developed from surveys of women with breast cancer, health professionals and the published literature. The time trade off technique was then used to derive values for breast cancer treatment outcomes in a survey of women in Sydney, Australia. Respondents included women with breast cancer and women who had not had breast cancer. Testing of (i) the effect of prognosis on the value attached to a health scenario; and (ii) whether the value attached to a health scenario remains constant over time has been reported. The estimate of the net costs of screening are reported. The costs of breast cancer screening include the screening programme itself, the further investigations and the subsequent treatment of breast cancer cases. Breast cancer is treated in the absence of screening, many commentators claim earlier treatment is costly but there is little evidence. Therefore we have investigated current patterns of breast cancer treatment, current use of investigations for women presenting with symptoms and current use of covert mammography screening. The results are extrapolated to obtain estimates of the costs and outcomes presented as cost per healthy year equivalent. This analysis produces important information for the Australian policy debate over mammography. It also contributes to the development of cost utility analysis and the approach developed here can be applied more generally.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VBF-4665F15-VD/2/a31bc91059e7d6e310eb2ab2effe6af4
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

Volume (Year): 34 (1992)
Issue (Month): 9 (May)
Pages: 993-1004

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:34:y:1992:i:9:p:993-1004

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description

Order Information:
Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
Web: http://www.elsevier.com/orderme/journalorderform.cws_home/315/journalorderform1/orderooc/id=654&ref=654_01_ooc_1&version=01

Related research

Keywords: economic evaluation health economics breast cancer screening mammography screening;

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Cam Donaldson & Stephen Birch & Amiram Gafni, 2002. "The distribution problem in economic evaluation: income and the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 55-70.
  2. Han Bleichrodt & José Luis Pinto & José María Abellán-Perpiñán, 2003. "A consistency test of the time trade-off," Economics Working Papers 676, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
  3. Richard Milne & Kathy Heaton-Brown & Paul Hansen & David Thomas & Vernon Harvey & Alison Cubitt, 2006. "Quality-of-Life Valuations of Advanced Breast Cancer by New Zealand Women," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 281-292, March.
  4. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
  5. Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Jan J. V. Busschbach & Leida M. Lamers & Paul F. M. Krabbe, 2005. "The gap effect: discontinuities of preferences around dead," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 679-685.
  6. Szeto, Kam Leong & Devlin, Nancy J., 1996. "The cost-effectiveness of mammography screening: evidence from a microsimulation model for New Zealand," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 101-115, November.
  7. José Mª Abellán & José Luis Pinto & Ildefonso Méndez & Xabier Badía, 2004. "A test of the predictive validity of non-linear QALY models using time trade-off utilities," Economics Working Papers 741, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
  8. Angela Robinson & Anne Spencer, 2006. "Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 393-402.
  9. Carmen Herrero Blanco, 2001. "Individual Evidence Of Independence In Health Profiles Evaluation," Working Papers. Serie AD 2001-20, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
  10. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51.
  11. G. Ardine De Wit & Jan J.V. Busschbach & Frank Th. De Charro, 2000. "Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 109-126.
  12. Peasgood, T & Ward, S & Brazier, J, 2010. "A review and meta-analysis of health state utility values in breast cancer," MPRA Paper 29950, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  13. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre-scored multi-attribute health classification measure in validating condition-specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:34:y:1992:i:9:p:993-1004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.