Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of strategies to increase cervical cancer screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC trial). Methods We performed an economic analysis alongside the STRATEGIC trial, comparing each of seven novel interventions for improving cervical screening uptake with control general practices in Greater Manchester and Grampian (United Kingdom). A template was developed to measure the intervention costs. Trial estimates of screening uptake were combined with data from the literature to estimate healthcare costs of each intervention. The added lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of attending cervical screening were estimated by a systematic literature review, with relevant results pooled and weighted by study quality. Trial results and estimated lifetime costs and benefits of screening were then combined in a decision analytic model, giving an incremental cost per QALY gained for each intervention. Uncertainty was addressed in probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses. Results Intervention costs per screening round per woman attending varied from about £1.20 (2014 UK) for the nurse navigator intervention to £62 for the unrequested HPV self-sampler kit. The meta-analysis revealed a lifetime discounted benefit from screening of 0.043 QALYs per woman attending, at an additional lifetime discounted cost of £234. The incremental cost per QALY gained in all interventions was below £13,000. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that only unrequested self-sampling and timed appointments have a high probability of being cost-effective. Conclusions Unrequested self-sampling and timed appointments are likely to be cost-effective interventions. Further research is required on the duration of effects and on implementing combinations of interventions.

Original publication




Journal article


J Med Screen

Publication Date





99 - 109


Cost-effectiveness, United Kingdom, cervical cancer, screening uptake, Adult, Appointments and Schedules, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Early Detection of Cancer, Female, Health Care Costs, Humans, Patient Participation, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, State Medicine, United Kingdom, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms