The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cervical Cancer Screening Using a Systematic Invitation System in Lithuania.

In Lithuania, cytological screening of cervical cancer (CC) is largely opportunistic. Absence of standardized systematic invitation practice might be the reason for low participation rates. The study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of systematic invitation approach in CC screening programme from the perspective of a healthcare provider. A decision tree was used to compare an opportunistic invitation by a family doctor, a personal postal invitation letter with appointment time and place, and a personal postal invitation letter with appointment time and place with one reminder letter. Cost-effectiveness was defined as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per one additionally screened woman and per one additional abnormal Pap smear test detected. The ICER of one personal postal invitation letter was €9.67 per one additionally screened woman and €55.21 per one additional abnormal Pap smear test detected in comparison with the current screening practice. The ICER of a personal invitation letter with an additional reminder letter compared to one invitation letter was €13.47 and €86.88 respectively. Conclusions: A personal invitation letter approach is more effective in increasing the participation rate in CC screening and the number of detected abnormal Pap smears; however, it incurs additional expenses compared with current invitation practice.

Organised Versus Opportunistic Cervical Cancer Screening in Urban and Rural Regions of Lithuania.

Background and Objectives: In 2004, Lithuania started the Nationwide Cervical Cancer Screening Programme. However, screening is more opportunistic than population-wide and the programme's coverage is insufficient. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of systematic personal invitation on coverage of cervical cancer (CC) screening in urban and rural regions of Lithuania. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in an urban primary healthcare centre (PHCC) and in a rural PHCC, where prevailing CC screening practice was highly opportunistic. Over the first year, all women aged 25-60 who had not received a Pap smear test within the last three years in urban (n = 1591) and rural (n = 1843) PHCCs received a personal invitation letter to participate in the screening. Over the second year, the reminder letter was sent to the non-attendees (n = 1042 in urban and n = 929 in rural PHCCs). A random sample of women (n = 93), who did not attend for screening after two letters, was contacted by phone in order to identify the barriers of non-attendance. Results: Before the study, only 9.6% of the target population in urban and 14.7% in rural PHCCs participated in CC screening. After the first invitation letter, the participation in CC screening increased up to 24.6% in urban and 30.8% in rural areas (p < 0.001). After the reminder letter, the attendance was 16.4% in urban and 22.2% in rural PHCCs (p < 0.001). The most common barriers for the non-attendance were lack of time, long waiting time for family doctor's appointment, worries that a Pap test might be unpleasant and preventive gynaecological examination outside of the screening program. Conclusions: A systematic personal invitation with one reminder letter significantly increased the coverage of CC screening and was more effective in rural regions than in urban regions. The assessed barriers for non-attendance can be used to improve the coverage of screening.