Results 121 to 130 of about 593,899 (165)

Improving the Cost-Effectiveness of Chlamydia Screening with Targeted Screening Strategies

Journal of the Operational Research Society, 2006
Chlamydia is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the UK and constitutes a major public health problem. The UK Department of Health is phasing in a National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) but there is concern that blanket screening of the entire at risk population will simply add extra burden to the already overstretched health ...
Dave Evenden, Paul R. Harper, Sally C. Brailsford, V. Harindra   +3 more
openaire   +3 more sources

Cost Effective Drug Screening in the Laboratory

Clinical Toxicology, 1981
In the treatment of sudden, severe, often life-threatening toxic manifestations caused by exogenous substances, the laboratory plays a vital part. In its role in detecting, and if necessary, quantitating certain of these substances, the laboratory serves to support the hospital emergency room and intensive care units. This paper is intended to answer a
D, Sohn, J, Byers
openaire   +2 more sources

Is screening cost effective?

BMJ, 2009
The cost effectiveness of an intervention (especially in those aged 65 and over who are subject to the multiple effects of ageing on survival) should be determined by its effect on the overall survival of the intervention group compared with that …
openaire   +1 more source

Reducing the cost of anti-HIV screening

Journal of Virological Methods, 1988
In an attempt to reduce the cost of testing for anti-human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) we looked at the possibility of recycling the Wellcozyme (R) HIV antigen bound wells; our findings showed that there was no significant reduction in sensitivity of the test samples or controls when run in parallel with new plates.
J M, Smillie, F A, Ala
openaire   +2 more sources

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: What are the Costs?

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1995
AbstractWe examined a screening program for colorectal cancer in South Australia in terms of its overall direct costs to society and costs to participants. The best estimate of the cost per cancer detected was $18,924 (Australian dollars). Potential improvements in health outcome through screening are discussed in light of these costs.
Weller, D., Moss, J., Hiller, J., Thomas, D., Edwards, J.   +4 more
openaire   +3 more sources

The cost‐effectiveness of breast cancer screening

International Journal of Cancer, 1989
AbstractThe costs and effects of different invitation schedules of breast cancer screening are compared. The effect estimates are based on trials from the USA, Sweden and the Netherlands. The cost estimates use registration data, file studies and organization charts.
Paul J. Van Der Maas, Harry J. De Koning, B. Martin Van Ineveld, Gerrit J. Van Oortmarssen, J. Dik F. Habbema, Koos Th. N. Lubbe, Ada T. Geerts, Hubertine J. A. Collette, André L. M. Verbeek, Jan H. C. L. Hendriks, Jan J. Rombach   +10 more
openaire   +2 more sources

Induced costs of low-cost screening mammography.

Radiology, 1988
Telephone follow-up in a recent low-cost ($50) mammography screening project in Orange County, California, was done to determine the detection rate and the induced costs of detection of small breast cancers. Because 403 of 2,261 (18%) women screened required additional evaluation and the cost of evaluation per abnormal mammogram averaged $607, the ...
openaire   +2 more sources

Cost-benefit determinations in screening mammography

Cancer, 1987
A cost-benefit analysis clearly shows that the costs for screening a large population of asymptomatic women are well within the cost-benefit range accepted for other areas within the medical care system. Reduction in cancer deaths is not easy to come by.
openaire   +2 more sources

Mediational screening: Is the benefit worth the cost?

American Journal of Community Psychology, 1991
Argued that Pillow et al. (1991) may have overestimated the benefits of mediational screening and underestimated the costs involved in the procedure. The three benefits they suggest: increased statistical power to detect prevention effects, increased cost-effectiveness, and decreased iatrogenic effects are shown to be modest at best.
openaire   +2 more sources

Cost of oral screening

The Lancet, 1991
G R, Ogden, J G, Cowpe, D M, Chisholm
openaire   +2 more sources