IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i2p196-211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Markov Decision Process Model for Cervical Cancer Screening Policies in Colombia

Author

Listed:
  • Raha Akhavan-Tabatabaei
  • Diana Marcela Sánchez
  • Thomas G. Yeung

Abstract

Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women around the world, and the human papillomavirus (HPV) is universally known as the necessary agent for developing this disease. Through early detection of abnormal cells and HPV virus types, cervical cancer incidents can be reduced and disease progression prevented. We propose a finite-horizon Markov decision process model to determine the optimal screening policies for cervical cancer prevention. The optimal decision is given in terms of when and what type of screening test to be performed on a patient based on her current diagnosis, age, HPV contraction risk, and screening test results. The cost function considers the tradeoff between the cost of prevention and treatment procedures and the risk of taking no action while taking into account a cost assigned to loss of life quality in each state. We apply the model to data collected from a representative sample of 1141 affiliates at a health care provider located in Bogotá, Colombia. To track the disease incidence more effectively and avoid higher cancer rates and future costs, the optimal policies recommend more frequent colposcopies and Pap tests for women with riskier profiles.

Suggested Citation

  • Raha Akhavan-Tabatabaei & Diana Marcela Sánchez & Thomas G. Yeung, 2017. "A Markov Decision Process Model for Cervical Cancer Screening Policies in Colombia," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(2), pages 196-211, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:2:p:196-211
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16670622
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X16670622
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X16670622?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lisa M. Maillart & Julie Simmons Ivy & Scott Ransom & Kathleen Diehl, 2008. "Assessing Dynamic Breast Cancer Screening Policies," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(6), pages 1411-1427, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Robert Kraig Helmeczi & Can Kavaklioglu & Mucahit Cevik & Davood Pirayesh Neghab, 2023. "A multi-objective constrained partially observable Markov decision process model for breast cancer screening," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 1-42, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elliot Lee & Mariel Lavieri & Michael Volk & Yongcai Xu, 2015. "Applying reinforcement learning techniques to detect hepatocellular carcinoma under limited screening capacity," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 363-375, September.
    2. Robert Kraig Helmeczi & Can Kavaklioglu & Mucahit Cevik & Davood Pirayesh Neghab, 2023. "A multi-objective constrained partially observable Markov decision process model for breast cancer screening," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 1-42, June.
    3. Dan Andrei Iancu & Nikolaos Trichakis & Do Young Yoon, 2021. "Monitoring with Limited Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4233-4251, July.
    4. Jue Wang, 2016. "Minimizing the false alarm rate in systems with transient abnormality," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(4), pages 320-334, June.
    5. M. Reza Skandari & Steven M. Shechter & Nadia Zalunardo, 2015. "Optimal Vascular Access Choice for Patients on Hemodialysis," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 608-619, October.
    6. Hessam Bavafa & Sergei Savin & Christian Terwiesch, 2021. "Customizing Primary Care Delivery Using E‐Visits," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(11), pages 4306-4327, November.
    7. Christian Wernz & Yongjia Song & Danny R. Hughes, 2021. "How hospitals can improve their public quality metrics: a decision-theoretic model," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 702-715, December.
    8. Turgay Ayer & Oguzhan Alagoz & Natasha K. Stout & Elizabeth S. Burnside, 2016. "Heterogeneity in Women’s Adherence and Its Role in Optimal Breast Cancer Screening Policies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1339-1362, May.
    9. Li, Y. & Zhu, M. & Klein, R. & Kong, N., 2014. "Using a partially observable Markov chain model to assess colonoscopy screening strategies – A cohort study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(1), pages 313-326.
    10. Hui Zhang & Christian Wernz & Danny R. Hughes, 2018. "A Stochastic Game Analysis of Incentives and Behavioral Barriers in Chronic Disease Management," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 302-319, September.
    11. Mehmet U. S. Ayvaci & Oguzhan Alagoz & Elizabeth S. Burnside, 2012. "The Effect of Budgetary Restrictions on Breast Cancer Diagnostic Decisions," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 14(4), pages 600-617, October.
    12. Mehmet A. Ergun & Ali Hajjar & Oguzhan Alagoz & Murtuza Rampurwala, 2022. "Optimal breast cancer risk reduction policies tailored to personal risk level," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 363-388, September.
    13. Turgay Ayer, 2015. "Inverse optimization for assessing emerging technologies in breast cancer screening," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 230(1), pages 57-85, July.
    14. Wesley J. Marrero & Mariel S. Lavieri & Jeremy B. Sussman, 2021. "Optimal cholesterol treatment plans and genetic testing strategies for cardiovascular diseases," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1-25, March.
    15. Laura McLay & Christodoulos Foufoulides & Jason Merrick, 2010. "Using simulation-optimization to construct screening strategies for cervical cancer," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 294-318, December.
    16. Wang, Fan & Zhang, Shengfan & Henderson, Louise M., 2018. "Adaptive decision-making of breast cancer mammography screening: A heuristic-based regression model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 70-84.
    17. Turgay Ayer & Oguzhan Alagoz & Natasha K. Stout, 2012. "OR Forum---A POMDP Approach to Personalize Mammography Screening Decisions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(5), pages 1019-1034, October.
    18. Zlatana Nenova & Jennifer Shang, 2022. "Personalized Chronic Disease Follow‐Up Appointments: Risk‐Stratified Care Through Big Data," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(2), pages 583-606, February.
    19. Boloori, Alireza & Saghafian, Soroush & Chakkera, Harini A. A. & Cook, Curtiss B., 2017. "Data-Driven Management of Post-transplant Medications: An APOMDP Approach," Working Paper Series rwp17-036, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    20. Elliot Lee & Mariel S. Lavieri & Michael Volk, 2019. "Optimal Screening for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Restless Bandit Model," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 198-212, January.

    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:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:2:p:196-211. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.