PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15316915

A perspective from countries using organized screening programs.

Abstract

Cancer screening may be offered to a population opportunistically, as part of an organized program, or as some combination of the preceding two options. Organized screening is distinguished from opportunistic screening primarily on the basis of how invitations to screening are extended. In organized screening, invitations are issued from centralized population registers. In opportunistic screening, however, due to the lack of central registers, invitations to screening depend on the individual's decision or on encounters with health care providers. The current article outlines key differences between organized and opportunistic screening. In the current study, literature searches were performed using PubMed and MEDLINE. Additional data were assembled from interviews with health officials in the five countries investigated and from the authors' personal files. Opportunistic screening was found to be distinguishable from organized screening on the basis of whether screening invitations were issued from centralized population registers. Organized screening programs also assumed centralized responsibility for other key elements of screening, such as eligibility requirements, quality assurance, follow-up, and evaluation. Organized programs focused on reducing mortality and morbidity at the level of the population rather than at the level of the individual. Thus, programs did not necessarily offer the most sensitive screening test for a particular cancer, and tests sometimes were offered at suboptimal intervals with respect to individual-level protection. Nonetheless, organized systems paid greater attention to the quality of screening, as measured by factors such as cancer detection rates, tumor characteristics, and false-positive biopsy rates. As a result, participants in organized screening programs received greater protection from the harmful effects associated with screening. In addition, organized programs worked more systematically toward providing value for money in an inevitably resource-limited environment. Although organized and opportunistic models of screening can yield similar uptake rates, organized programs exhibited greater potential ability to reduce cancer incidence and mortality, because of the higher levels of population coverage and centralized commitment to quality and monitoring; were more likely to be cost-effective; and offered greater protection against the harmful effects associated with poor quality or overly frequent screening.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Anne Miles, Jill Cockburn, Robert A Smith, Jane Wardle. 2004-09-01. A perspective from countries using organized screening programs.. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20505

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Impacts and responses to sea-level rise: a global analysis of the SRES scenarios over the twenty-first century.

Taking the Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) climate and socio-economic scenarios (A1FI, A2, B1 and B2 'future worlds'), the potential impacts of sea-level rise through the twenty-first century are explored using complementary impact and economic analysis methods at the global scale. These methods have never been explored together previously. In all scenarios, the exposure and hence the impact potential due to increased flooding by sea-level rise increases significantly compared to the base year (1990). While mitigation reduces impacts, due to the lagged response of sea-level rise to atmospheric temperature rise, impacts cannot be avoided during the twenty-first century by this response alone. Cost-benefit analyses suggest that widespread protection will be an economically rational response to land loss due to sea-level rise in the four SRES futures that are considered. The most vulnerable future worlds to sea-level rise appear to be the A2 and B2 scenarios, which primarily reflects differences in the socio-economic situation (coastal population, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and GDP/capita), rather than the magnitude of sea-level rise. Small islands and deltaic settings stand out as being more vulnerable as shown in many earlier analyses. Collectively, these results suggest that human societies will have more choice in how they respond to sea-level rise than is often assumed. However, this conclusion needs to be tempered by recognition that we still do not understand these choices and significant impacts remain possible. Future worlds which experience larger rises in sea-level than considered here (above 35 cm), more extreme events, a reactive rather than proactive approach to adaptation, and where GDP growth is slower or more unequal than in the SRES futures remain a concern. There is considerable scope for further research to better understand these diverse issues.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

The costs and benefits of regulations for reimbursement of new drugs.

INTRODUCTION: An increasing regulation for pricing and reimbursement decisions is associated with both costs and benefits. One potential cost is a delayed introduction of drugs on the market. The objective of this study was to discuss and analyse the time lag between drug authorisation and reimbursement for new chemical entities (NCEs) in Sweden and Finland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was based on a sample of 242 NCE drugs, authorised by the regulatory authorities in Sweden or Finland between January 1995 and April 2003. Data on authorisation dates, reimbursement dates, capacity of manufacturing companies, requirements for economic evaluations by reimbursement authorities, anatomic therapeutic classification, therapeutic value and sale statistics were collected for the drugs. A hypothesis, saying that the lag is affected by the increasing regulation associated with the introduction of formal requirements for cost-effectiveness information for pricing and reimbursement decisions, was tested. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-eight of the 242 drugs included in the analyses were reimbursed in Sweden and 104 in Finland. The total mean lag time was 175 days, and the mean lag times in Sweden and Finland were 114 and 256 days, respectively. Regression analysis demonstrated that drugs with low sale and drugs from companies with large capacity of introducing new drugs were associated with a longer and shorter lag times, respectively. The results also demonstrated that authorisation during first year after introduction of requirement for cost-effectiveness information was associated with an increased lag time. DISCUSSION: The results demonstrated that there are considerable time lags between authorisation and reimbursement of new drugs, both in Sweden and Finland. The results further indicated that an increased regulation for reimbursement by introducing requirements for cost-effectiveness information is associated with an increased time lag, at least for drugs authorised early after introduction of the new requirements. It is therefore important to further discuss the costs and benefits of an increased regulation for reimbursement, in order to find the optimal regulatory requirements.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗