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

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.

What Are the Economic Arguments for Mandating LGBT+ Health Training for Healthcare Providers? An Economic Evaluation of the Impacts of LGBT+ Health Training on Cervical Screening

“…Although there is literature about the cost-effectiveness of cervical screening [ 24 ], there has not been a focus on professional training to remove barriers in access. We assume a rate of increase in screening uptake for lesbians and bisexual women that was informed by a limited evidence base.…”