Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2014;15(13):5143-7.
doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.13.5143.

Cost effective analysis of recall methods for cervical cancer screening in Selangor--results from a prospective randomized controlled trial

Affiliations
Free article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Cost effective analysis of recall methods for cervical cancer screening in Selangor--results from a prospective randomized controlled trial

Rima Marhayu Abdul Rashid et al. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014.
Free article

Abstract

Cervical cancer screening in Malaysia is by opportunistic Pap smear which contributes to the low uptake rate. To overcome this, a pilot project called the SIPPS program (translated as information system of Pap smear program) had been introduced whereby women aged 20-65 years old are invited for Pap smear and receive recall to repeat the test. This study aimed at determining which recall method is most cost-effective in getting women to repeat Pap smear. A randomised control trial was conducted where one thousand women were recalled for repeat smear either by registered letter, phone messages, phone call or the usual postal letter. The total cost applied for cost-effectiveness analysis includes the cost of sending letter for first invitation, cost of the recall method and cost of two Pap smears. Cost-effective analysis (CEA) of Pap smear uptake by each recall method was then performed. The uptake of Pap smear by postal letter, registered letters, SMS and phone calls were 18.8%, 20.0%, 21.6% and 34.4%, respectively (p<0.05). The CER for the recall method was lowest by phone call compared to other interventions; RM 69.18 (SD RM 0.14) compared to RM 106.53 (SD RM 0.13), RM 134.02 (SD RM 0.15) and RM 136.38 (SD RM 0.11) for SMS, registered letter and letter, respectively. ICER showed that it is most cost saving if the usual method of recall by postal letter be changed to recall by phone call. The possibility of letter as a recall for repeat Pap smear to reach the women is higher compared to sending SMS or making phone call. However, getting women to do repeat Pap smear is better with phone call which allows direct communication. Despite the high cost of the phone call as a recall method for repeat Pap smear, it is the most cost-effective method compared to others.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types