High-risk human papillomavirus testing for underscreened populations: cost-effectiveness and affordability in three country settings
- PMID: 40731006
- PMCID: PMC12305891
- DOI: 10.1186/s12889-025-23791-0
High-risk human papillomavirus testing for underscreened populations: cost-effectiveness and affordability in three country settings
Abstract
Background: The high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-based screening recommended by the World Health Organization is expected to lead to worldwide reduction of the cervical cancer burden, but the countries burdened most by cervical cancer also struggle with the costs of transitioning to this approach. Country-specific evaluations are needed to inform policymakers on implementation of hrHPV-based screening for their setting. Following initial implementation in Uganda, Bangladesh and Slovakia focused on underscreened women in the PRESCRIP-TEC project, we investigated the potential cost-effectiveness and affordability of hrHPV-based screening strategies.
Methods: Country-specific model-based cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses were conducted for the three countries, comparing the PRESCRIP-TEC strategy with the existing screening strategy in each setting. Data from initial project implementation informed the relevant model parameters.
Results: The PRESCRIP-TEC strategy resulted in disability-adjusted life year (DALY) gains in all three countries. The cervical cancer incidence rate was reduced by a third for Uganda, 15% for Bangladesh and 11% for Slovakia. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were UGX 0.56 million per DALY for Uganda (I$ 475), BDT 76 thousand per DALY for Bangladesh (I$ 1698) and EUR 1782 (I$ 3637) per DALY for Slovakia. Substantial additional funding will be required to enable implementation, particularly in relation to the initial start-up costs.
Conclusions: The provided estimates can serve to inform policymakers and researchers in the context of implementing hrHPV-based screening in diverse settings.
Keywords: Budget impact; Cervical cancer; Cost-effectiveness; Economic evaluation; High-risk human papillomavirus; Screening.
© 2025. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Figures




Similar articles
-
Investigating feasibility of 2021 WHO protocol for cervical cancer screening in underscreened populations: PREvention and SCReening Innovation Project Toward Elimination of Cervical Cancer (PRESCRIP-TEC).BMC Public Health. 2022 Jul 15;22(1):1356. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13488-z. BMC Public Health. 2022. PMID: 35840949 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
HPV DNA screening and vaccination strategies in Tunisia.Sci Rep. 2025 Jul 31;15(1):27916. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-13423-3. Sci Rep. 2025. PMID: 40745454 Free PMC article.
-
[Health technology assessment report. Use of liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer precursors screening].Epidemiol Prev. 2012 Sep-Oct;36(5 Suppl 2):e1-e33. Epidemiol Prev. 2012. PMID: 23139163 Italian.
-
The Utility of an Human Papillomavirus Genotype Assay for Cancer Screening in Self-Collected Urine and Vaginal Samples from Japanese Women.Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2025;90(2):143-152. doi: 10.1159/000541641. Epub 2024 Oct 7. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2025. PMID: 39374596 Free PMC article.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(28):1-110. doi: 10.3310/hta5280. Health Technol Assess. 2001. PMID: 11701100
References
-
- Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74:229–63. - PubMed
-
- Descamps P, Dixon S, Bosch Jose FX, Kyrgiou M, Monsonego J, Neisingh O, et al. Turning the tide—Recommendations to increase cervical cancer screening among women who are underscreened. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2024;166:3–21. - PubMed