IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v16y1982i13p1277-1283.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Breast cancer screening : A study in cost-effectiveness analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Mooney, Gavin

Abstract

This paper identifies the long run average British National Health Service screening costs in one particular screening clinic for various different regimes: mammography, thermography and clinical examination: thermography and clinical examination: and mammography and clinical examination; each of these having one or two clinical examinations and the option of single or double reporting of mammograms and thermograms. It then compares the cost-effectiveness of these different regimes where 'costs' are defined widely to include not only screening costs but also biopsy costs, anxiety costs for women biopsied, costs of false negatives, etc. By defining costs in this way, it was possible (if somewhat tentatively because of the small numbers involved) to identify mammography with single reporting together with a single clinical examination as 'the best buy'.

Suggested Citation

  • Mooney, Gavin, 1982. "Breast cancer screening : A study in cost-effectiveness analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 16(13), pages 1277-1283, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:16:y:1982:i:13:p:1277-1283
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(82)90071-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:16:y:1982:i:13:p:1277-1283. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.