Table 3.

Cost-effectiveness results for screening in women over age 30.^*

	Kenya†	Mozambique†	Tanzania†	Uganda†
	$/YLS	$/YLS	$/YLS	$/YLS
Screening with one-visit VIA once per lifetime‡
VIA at age 35	2010	1080	700	840
Screening with either one-visit VIA or HPV DNA testing once per lifetime‡
VIA at age 35	§	§	§	§
HPV at age 35	1400	770	450	570
Screening with either two-visit VIA or HPV DNA testing once per lifetime‡
VIA at age 35	§	§	§	§
HPV at age 35	1860	1010	630	770
Screening with one-visit HPV DNA testing once or three times per lifetime‡¶
HPV at age 35	§	§	§	570
HPV at ages 35, 40, 45	1370	720	450	720
Screening with two-visit HPV DNA testing once or three times per lifetime‡¶
HPV at age 35	§	§	§	770
HPV at ages 35, 40, 45	1770	920	610	930

^*YLS = years of life saved; VIA = visual inspection with acetic acid; HPV = human papillomavirus DNA testing.

^†Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, 2005 I$ for each country is as follows: Kenya (I$1470); Mozambique (I$791); Tanzania (I$1167); Uganda (I$1077).²⁸

^‡Analyses assume either 1-visit VIA or HPV testing or 2-visit VIA or HPV testing. The results should be interpreted assuming that a country has already decided to utilize the strategy shown if a single strategy is presented; when two strategies are shown as options, this assumption is not made.

^§These strategies are either more costly and less effective, or have higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios than more effective options, and are thus considered dominated.

^¶HPV DNA testing three times per lifetime is compared to HPV DNA testing twice per lifetime, unless the strategy was dominated, in which case HPV DNA testing was compared to testing once per lifetime. Results for screening twice per lifetime are presented in the Appendix.