Cost-effectiveness of targeted versus tailored interventions to promote mammography screening among women military veterans in the United States
Objective We conducted an economic evaluation of mammography promotion interventions in a population-based, nationally representative sample of 5500 women veterans.Methods Women 52 years and older were randomly selected from the National Registry of Women Veterans and randomly assigned to a survey-only control group and two intervention groups that varied in the extent of personalization (tailored vs. targeted). Effectiveness measures were the prevalence of at least one self-reported post-intervention mammogram and two post-intervention mammograms 6-15 months apart. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were the incremental cost per additional person screened. Uncertainty was examined with sensitivity analysis and bootstrap simulation.Results The targeted intervention cost $25 per person compared to $52 per person for the tailored intervention. About 27% of the cost was incurred in identifying and recruiting the eligible population. The percent of women reporting at least one mammogram were .447 in the control group, .469 in the targeted group, and .460 in the tailored group. The ICER was $1116 comparing the targeted group to the control group (95% confidence interval (CI)Â =Â $493 to dominated). The tailored intervention was dominated (more costly and less effective) by the targeted intervention.Conclusion Decision-makers should consider effectiveness evidence and the full recruitment and patient time costs associated with the implementation of screening interventions when making investments in mammography screening promotion programs. Identification and recruitment of eligible participants add substantial costs to outreach screening promotion interventions. Tailoring adds substantial cost to the targeted mammography promotion strategy without a commensurate increase in effectiveness. Although cost-effectiveness has been reported to be higher for some in-reach screening promotion interventions, a recent meta-analysis revealed significant heterogeneity in the effect sizes of published health-plan based intervention studies for repeat mammography (i.e., some studies reported null effects compared with control groups).
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.
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.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Andrew H. Briggs & Bernie J. O'Brien, 2001. "The death of cost-minimization analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 179-184.
- N/A, 2002. "Overview," South Asian Survey, , vol. 9(1), pages 112-161, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:34:y:2011:i:2:p:97-104. 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.