Search

Background: Young women's attendance at cervical screening in the UK is continuing to fall, and the incidence of invasive cervical cancer is rising. Objectives: We assessed the preferences of non‐attending young women for alternative ways of delivering cervical screening. Design: Postal discrete choice experiment (DCE) conducted during the STRATEGIC study of interventions for increasing cervical screening uptake. Attributes included action required to arrange a test, location of the test, availability of a nurse navigator and cost to the National Health Service. Setting and participants: Non‐attending young women in two UK regions. Main outcome measures: Responses were analysed using a mixed multinomial logit model. A predictive analysis identified the most preferable strategy compared to current screening. Preferences from the DCE were compared with observed behaviours during the STRATEGIC trial. Results: The DCE response rate was 5.5% (222/4000), and 94% of respondents agreed screening is important. Preference heterogeneity existed around attributes with strong evidence for test location. Relative to current screening, unsolicited self‐sampling kits for home use appeared most preferable. The STRATEGIC trial showed this same intervention to be most effective although many women who received it and were screened, attended for conventional cytology instead. Conclusions: The DCE and trial identified the unsolicited self‐sampling kit as the most preferred/effective intervention. The DCE suggested that the decision of some women receiving the kit in the trial to attend for conventional cytology may be due to anxieties around home testing coupled with a knowledge that ignoring the kit could potentially have life‐changing consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This cost analysis uses data from a randomized trial comparing a no prophylaxis versus prophylactic platelet ( PLT) transfusion policy (counts <10 × 109/L) in adult patients with hematologic malignancies. Results are presented for all patients and separately for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) (auto HSCT) and chemotherapy/allogeneic HSCT (chemo/allo HSCT) patients. Study Design and Methods Data were collected to 30 days on PLT and red blood cell ( RBC) transfusions, major bleeds, serious adverse events, critical care, and hematology ward stay. Data were costed using 2011 to 2012 UK unit costs and converted into US$. Sensitivity analyses were performed on uncertain cost variables. Results Across the whole trial no prophylaxis saved costs compared to prophylaxis: −$1760 per patient (95% confidence interval [ CI], −$3250 to −$249; p < 0.05). For auto HSCT patients there was no cost difference between arms: −$110 per patient (95% CI, −$1648 to $1565; p = 0.89). For chemo/allo HSCT patients no prophylaxis cost significantly less than prophylaxis: −$5686 per patient (95% CI, −$8580 to −$2853; p < 0.01). The cost impact of no prophylaxis differed significantly between subgroups. Sensitivity analyses varying daily treatment costs and ward stay for chemo/allo HSCT patients reduced cost differences to −$941 per patient (p = 0.21) across the whole trial and −$2927 per patient (p < 0.05) in chemo/allo HSCT subgroup. Conclusions It is unclear whether a no-prophylaxis policy saves costs overall. In chemo/allo HSCT patients cost savings are apparent but their magnitude is sensitive to a number of variables and must be considered alongside clinical data showing increased bleeding rates. In auto HSCT patients savings generated through lower PLT use in no-prophylaxis arm were offset by cost increases elsewhere, for example, additional RBC transfusions. Cost-effectiveness analyses of alternative PLT transfusion policies simultaneously considering costs and patient-reported outcomes are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]