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
. 2024 Jul;25(5):829-844.
doi: 10.1007/s10198-023-01627-1. Epub 2023 Sep 20.

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved women in Europe

Collaborators, Affiliations

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved women in Europe

Li Sun et al. Eur J Health Econ. 2024 Jul.

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness studies of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening uptake rates in underserved women in Europe.

Methods: A search of Embase, Medline, Global Health, PsychINFO, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database was conducted for studies published between January 2000 and September 2022. Studies were eligible if they analysed the cost-effectiveness of any interventions to improve participation in cervical cancer screening among underserved women of any age eligible to participate in cervical cancer screening in European countries, in any language. Study characteristics and cost-effectiveness results were summarised. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond Checklist, and methodological choices were further compared.

Results: The searches yielded 962 unique studies, with 17 of these (from twelve European countries) meeting the eligibility criteria for data extraction. All studies focused on underscreened women as an overarching group, with no identified studies focusing on specific subgroups of underserved women. Generally, self-HPV testing and reminder interventions were shown to be cost-effective to increase the uptake rates. There was also research showing that addressing access issues and adopting different screening modalities could be economically attractive in some settings, but the current evidence is insufficient due to the limited number of studies.

Conclusion: This systematic review has revealed a gap in the literature on the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve uptake rates of cervical cancer screening through tailored provision for specific groups of underserved women.

Keywords: Attendance; Cervical cancer screening; Cost-effectiveness; Coverage; Inequalitie; Uptake rates.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr Li Sun, Ms Camilla Fiorina, Dr Lise Rochaix, Dr Anna M. Foss, and Dr Rosa Legood declare that they have received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 964049. Other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study Flow Diagram

References

    1. Bray F, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492. - DOI - PubMed
    1. International Agency for Research on Cancer - World Health Organization. Europe Fact Sheet. 2021; Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/populations/908-europe-fact-sh...
    1. Ginsburg O, et al. The global burden of women's cancers: a grand challenge in global health. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):847–860. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31392-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. European Institute of Women’s Health. Policy Brief: Women and cervical cancer in the EU (2017). 2017 [cited 2022 1st October]; Available from: https://eurohealth.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Cervical-Cancer.pdf
    1. Spence AR, Goggin P, Franco EL. Process of care failures in invasive cervical cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev. Med. 2007;45(2–3):93–106. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.06.007. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types