Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHernández, Rodolfo Andrésen
dc.contributor.authorBurr, Jennifer Margareten
dc.contributor.authorVale, Luke Daviden
dc.contributor.authorOAG Screening Project Groupen
dc.date.accessioned2008-05-22T13:23:11Z
dc.date.available2008-05-22T13:23:11Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.identifier.citationHernandez, R.A., Burr, J.M., and Vale, L. (2008) Economic evaluation of screening for open angle glaucoma. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care [Online], 24, pp. 203-211. Available from: http://journals.cambridge.org [Accessed 22 May 2008]en
dc.identifier.issn0266-4623
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 429304
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2164/204
dc.description.abstractObjectives: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening for open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in the United Kingdom, given that OAG is an important cause of blindness worldwide. Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and benefits of a cohort of patients facing, alternatively, screening or current opportunistic case finding strategies. Strategies, varying in how screening would be organized (e.g., invitation for assessment by a glaucoma-trained optometrist [GO] or for simple test assessment by a technician) were developed, and allowed for the progression of OAG and treatment effects. Data inputs were obtained from systematic reviews. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Screening was more likely to be cost-effective as prevalence increased, for 40 year olds compared with 60 or 75 year olds, when the re-screening interval was greater (10 years), and for the technician strategy compared with the GO strategy. For each age cohort and at prevalence levels of ≤1 percent, the likelihood that either screening strategy would be more cost-effective than current practice was small. For those 40 years of age, “technician screening” compared with current practice has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that society might be willing to pay when prevalence is 6 percent to 10 percent and at over 10 percent for 60 year olds. In the United Kingdom, the age specific prevalence of OAG is much lower. Screening by GO, at any age or prevalence level, was not associated with an ICER < £30,000. Conclusions: Population screening for OAG is unlikely to be cost-effective but could be for specific subgroups at higher risk.en
dc.description.sponsorshipThis study was developed from a health technology assessment on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of screening for open-angle glaucoma (OAG), funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (project no. 04/08/02).en
dc.format.extent480302 bytes
dc.format.extent8 p.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherCambridge University Pressen
dc.subjectCost-Benefit Analysisen
dc.subjectGlaucoma,Open-Angleen
dc.subjectVision Screeningen
dc.subject.lccRE Ophthalmologyen
dc.titleEconomic evaluation of screening for open angle glaucomaen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.typeTexten
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of Aberdeen, School of Medicine & Dentistry, Division of Applied Health Sciencesen
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.description.versionAuthor versionen
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462308080288


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record