IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0207442.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-utility analysis of the screening program for early oral cancer detection in Thailand

Author

Listed:
  • Chutima Kumdee
  • Wantanee Kulpeng
  • Yot Teerawattananon

Abstract

Objective: To assess the cost-utility of an oral precancer screening program compared to a no-screening program in Thailand. Materials and methods: Markov models were performed to simulate costs and Quality Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) of both the screening and no-screening programs in the Thai population aged over 40 years. There are four steps to the screening program in Thailand: 1) mouth self-examination (MSE); 2) visual examination by trained dental nurses (VETDN); 3) visual examination by trained dentists (VETD); and 4) visual examination by oral surgeons (VEOS). The societal perspective and lifetime horizon were applied. Variables used were derived from the pilot study of the oral precancer screening program in Roi Et province as well as through patient interviews and local and international literature reviews. Results were presented in terms of Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICER). Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess parameters uncertainty. Results: The screening program yielded higher costs (1,362 Baht) and QALYs (0.0044 years) than the no screening program, producing an ICER of 311,030 Baht per QALY gained. This indicates that the screening program is cost-ineffective in the Thai context, where the cost-effectiveness threshold is THB 160,000 per QALY gained. However, the programs will be cost-effective if the screening program are improved in one of three ways; 1) the sensitivity and specificity of MSE are more than 60%, 2) the sensitivity and specificity of VETDN are greater than 90%, or 3) the low accuracy steps like MSE or VETDN are removed from the screening program. Conclusion: The screening program is found to be cost-ineffective for oral precancer detection in Thailand. However, this study suggests 3 alternative policy options to ensure the cost-effectiveness of the program.

Suggested Citation

  • Chutima Kumdee & Wantanee Kulpeng & Yot Teerawattananon, 2018. "Cost-utility analysis of the screening program for early oral cancer detection in Thailand," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207442
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207442
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207442
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207442&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0207442?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Boworn Klongnoi & Vanvisa Sresumatchai & Siribang-on Piboonniyom Khovidhunkit & Pornpoj Fuangtharnthip & Rachatawan Leelarungsun & Binit Shrestha, 2021. "Pilot Model for Community Based Oral Cancer Screening Program: Outcome from 4 Northeastern Provinces in Thailand," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-12, September.

    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:plo:pone00:0207442. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.