Skip Navigation

JNCI Monographs 2003 2003(31):102-110;
© 2003 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goldie, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Goldie, S. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, No. 31, 102-110, 2003
© 2003 Oxford University Press

ARTICLE

Chapter 15: Public Health Policy and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Sue J. Goldie

Correspondence to: Sue J. Goldie, M.D., M.P.H., Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Ave., 2nd floor, Boston, MA 02115-5924 (e-mail: sgoldie{at}hsph.harvard.edu).

Recent scientific advances are providing an opportunity to revisit strategies for cervical cancer prevention. How to invest health resources wisely, such that public health benefits are maximized—and opportunity costs are minimized—is a critical question in the setting of enhanced cytologic screening methods, human papillomavirus DNA testing, and vaccine development. Developing sound clinical guidelines and public health policy will require careful consideration of the incremental benefits, harms, and costs associated with new interventions compared with existing interventions, at both an individual and a population level. In addition to an intervention’s effectiveness, public health decision making requires the consideration of its feasibility, sustainability, and affordability. No clinical trial or single cohort study will be able to simultaneously consider all of these components. Cost-effectiveness analysis and disease-simulation modeling, capitalizing on data from multiple sources, can serve as a valuable tool to extend the time horizon of clinical trials, to evaluate more strategies than possible in a single clinical trial, and to assess the relative costs and benefits of alternative policies to reduce mortality from cervical cancer.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ChestHome page
P. Harber, J. Levine, and S. Bansal
How Frequently Should Workplace Spirometry Screening Be Performed?: Optimization Via Analytic Models
Chest, October 1, 2009; 136(4): 1086 - 1094.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Rheumatology (Oxford)Home page
M. Vera-Llonch, E. Massarotti, F. Wolfe, N. Shadick, R. Westhovens, O. Sofrygin, R. Maclean, Y. Yuan, and G. Oster
Cost-effectiveness of abatacept in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate
Rheumatology, April 1, 2008; 47(4): 535 - 541.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.