↓ Skip to main content

A cost-utility analysis of cervical cancer screening and human papillomavirus vaccination in the Philippines

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
194 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A cost-utility analysis of cervical cancer screening and human papillomavirus vaccination in the Philippines
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2046-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Melissa Guerrero, Anne Julienne Genuino, Melanie Santillan, Naiyana Praditsitthikorn, Varit Chantarastapornchit, Yot Teerawattananon, Marissa Alejandria, Jean Anne Toral

Abstract

Cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer cases and deaths among Filipino women because of inadequate access to screening and treatment services.  This study aims to evaluate the health and economic benefits of HPV vaccination and its combination with different screening strategies to find the most optimal preventive strategy in the Philippines. A cost-utility analysis was conducted using an existing semi-Markov model to evaluate different screening (i.e., Pap smear, visual inspection with acetic acid) and vaccination strategies against HPV infection implemented alone or as part of a combination strategy at different coverage scenarios. The model was run using country-specific epidemiologic, cost and clinical parameters from a health system perspective. Sensitivity analysis was performed for vaccine efficacy, duration of protection and costs of vaccination, screening and treatment. Across all coverage scenarios, VIA has been shown to be a dominant and cost-saving screening strategy with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranging from dominant to Php 61,059 (1443 USD) per QALY gained. VIA can reduce cervical cancer cases and deaths by 25 %. Pap smear screening was found to be not cost-effective due to its high cost in the Philippines. Adding HPV vaccination at a cost of 54 USD per vaccinated girl on top of VIA screening was found to be potentially cost-effective using a threshold of 1 GDP per capita (i.e., Php 120,000 or 2835 USD/ QALY) with the most favorable assumption of providing lifelong immunity against high-risk oncogenic HPV types 16/18. The highest incremental QALY gain was achieved with 80 % coverage of the combined strategy of VIA at 35 to 45 years old done every five years following vaccination at 11 years of age with an ICER of Php 33,126 (783 USD). This strategy may result in a two-thirds reduction in cervical cancer burden. HPV vaccination is not cost-effective when vaccine protection lasts for less than 20 years. High VIA coverage targeting women aged 35-45 years old at five-year intervals is the most efficient and cost-saving strategy in reducing cervical cancer burden in the Philippines. Adding a vaccination program at high coverage among 11-year-old girls is potentially cost-effective in the Philippines assuming a life-long duration of vaccine efficacy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 190 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 20%
Student > Bachelor 21 11%
Researcher 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 9%
Student > Postgraduate 17 9%
Other 36 19%
Unknown 44 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 8%
Social Sciences 14 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Other 24 12%
Unknown 53 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 May 2017.
All research outputs
#7,295,013
of 23,923,788 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,636
of 15,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,842
of 266,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#140
of 283 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,923,788 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 283 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.