Search

Background: The aim of this study was to determine attitude of Dutch midwifes, gynecologists and general practitioners (GPs) towards involvement in antenatal cervical cancer screening (CCS) in the Netherlands. Methods: In 2021, Dutch midwives, gynecologists, and GPs were offered a single digital questionnaire assessing perceived feasibility, benefits, and harms of antenatal CCS. Results: A total of 6943 Questionnaires were send and response rate was 18% (N = 1260). Of all respondents, 78% considered antenatal CCS via obstetric care providers feasible. Most respondents (85%) agreed that offering CCS in person can increase motivation to attend. Most midwives (93%) considered that women would feel less encumbered if cervical sampling would be performed by obstetric care providers, rather than by GPs. Conclusion: Results indicate that introduction of antenatal CCS is considered feasible by a majority of Dutch midwifes, gynecologists, and GPs. Considered benefits include improved motivation to attend and reduced test related barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Loss to follow‐up (LTFU) within cervical screening programmes can result in missed clinically relevant lesions, potentially reducing programme effectiveness. To examine the health impact of losing women during the screening process, we determined the proportion of women LTFU per step of the Dutch hrHPV‐based screening programme. We then determined the probability of being LTFU by age, screening history and sampling method (self‐ or clinician‐sampled) using logistic regression analysis. Finally, we estimated the number of missed CIN2+/3+ lesions per LTFU moment by using the CIN‐risk in women compliant with follow‐up. Data from the Dutch nationwide pathology databank (Palga) was used. Women eligible for screening in 2017 and 2018 were included (N = 840,428). For clinician collected (CC) samples, the highest proportion LTFU was found following 'referral advice for colposcopy' (5.5% after indirect referral; 3.8% after direct referral). For self‐sampling, the highest proportions LTFU were found following the advice for repeat cytology (13.6%) and after referral advice for colposcopy (8.2% after indirect referral; 4.3% after direct referral). Self‐sampling users and women with no screening history had a higher LTFU‐risk (OR: 3.87, CI: 3.55–4.23; OR: 1.39, CI: 1.20–1.61) compared to women that used CC sampling and women that have been screened before, respectively. Of all women LTFU in 2017/18, the total number of potentially missed CIN2+ was 844 (21% of women LTFU). Most lesions were missed after 'direct referral for colposcopy' (N = 462, 11.5% of women LTFU). So, this indicates a gap between the screening programme and clinical care which requires further attention, by improving monitoring of patients after referral. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is under debate whether healthcare costs related to death and in life years gained (LysG) due to life saving interventions should be included in economic evaluations. We estimated the impact of including these costs on cost-effectiveness of cancer screening. We obtained health insurance, home care, nursing homes, and mortality data for 2.1 million inhabitants in the Netherlands in 1998-1999. Costs related to death were approximated by the healthcare costs in the last year of life (LastYL), by cause and age of death. Costs in LYsG were estimated by calculating the healthcare costs in any life year. We calculated the change in cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) if unrelated healthcare costs in the LastYL or in LYsG would be included. Costs in the LastYL were on average 33% higher for persons dying from cancer than from any cause. Including costs in LysG increased the CER by 4040 euro in women, and by 4100 euro in men. Of these, 660 euro in women, and 890 euro in men, were costs in the LastYL. Including unrelated healthcare costs in the LastYL or in LYsG will change the comparative cost-effectiveness of healthcare programmes. The CERs of cancer screening programmes will clearly increase, with approximately 4000 euro. However, because of the favourable CER's, including unrelated healthcare costs will in general have limited policy implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]