| pubmed-article:8768417 | rdf:type | pubmed:Citation | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0086343 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0205064 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0220908 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1948041 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0033414 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0010181 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:issue | 3 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:dateCreated | 1996-10-2 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:abstractText | A cost-effectiveness study of three different interventions to promote the uptake of screening for cervical cancer in general practice was carried out in Perth in 1991. Women eligible for a Pap smear were randomly allocated to one of four groups: one receiving letters with specific appointments to attend a screening clinic staffed by female doctors, one receiving letters informing them of the availability of the clinic and suggesting they make an appointment, one whose files were tagged to remind a doctor to offer a smear during a consultation, and a comparison control group that received opportunistic screening only. Variable and fixed costs for each group were itemised and summarised to give an average cost per smear taken. The cost and effectiveness of each intervention were then compared with those of the control group. Sensitivity analysis was performed on the major component of the costs, the doctor's time. Opportunistic screening cost $14.60 per smear and attained 16 per cent recruitment. Tagging files was the cheapest intervention ($14.75 per smear) although it was the least effective in recruiting women (20 per cent). This result held true for different scenarios of doctor's time allocated. Intervention by invitation letter with no appointment cost $45.35 per smear and attained 26 per cent recruitment, and intervention with a specific appointment cost $48.21 per smear and attained 30 per cent recruitment. Compared with the control group, the incremental cost-effectiveness for the tagged group was $15.40, for the letter-without-appointment group $97.75 and for the letter-with-appointment group $86.50. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:language | eng | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:journal | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:citationSubset | IM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:status | MEDLINE | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:month | Jun | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:issn | 1326-0200 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:PritchardD... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:StratonJ AJA | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:Le SueurHH | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:HyndmanJ CJC | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:issnType | Print | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:volume | 20 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:owner | NLM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:authorsComplete | Y | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:pagination | 272-7 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:dateRevised | 2006-11-15 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8768417-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8768417-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8768417-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8768417-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8768417-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8768417-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8768417-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8768417-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8768417-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8768417-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:year | 1996 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:articleTitle | Cost-effectiveness of interventions to promote cervical screening in general practice. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:affiliation | Department of Public Health, University of Western Australia, Perth. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:publicationType | Journal Article | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:publicationType | Clinical Trial | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:publicationType | Comparative Study | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:publicationType | Randomized Controlled Trial | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8768417 | pubmed:publicationType | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8768417 | lld:pubmed |
