Table 2.

Primary cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating ‘5-yearly self-sampling’ compared with the current 2-reminder letter policy

Respondent screening historya	Strategy	Lifetime CC risk	Discounted lifetime costs ($)b	Discounted QALEc	ICER ($)d
Scenario A: Self-sampling respondents are moderate under-screeners	No Screening	2.17%	328	19.7429	--
	‘5-yearly self-sampling’	0.75%	1,719	19.7899	29,627 (24,159-37,926)
	‘2-reminder letter policy’	0.75%	1,801	19.7898	Dominated
Scenario B: Self-sampling respondents are moderate and severe under- screeners	No Screening	2.17%	328	19.7429	--
	‘5-yearly self-sampling’	0.72%	1,741	19.7910	29,423 (23,990-37,683)
	‘2-reminder letter policy’	0.75%	1,801	19.7898	Dominated

CC: Cervical cancer; ICER: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; QALE: Quality-adjusted life expectancy.

^aModerate under-screening histories assumed women screen every 8-, or 10-years in the absence of self-sampling, and moderate and severe under-screening histories assumed women screen every 8-, 10-, 20-years or never-screened in the absence of self-sampling;

^bDiscounting started at screening initiation (i.e., age 25 years);

^cQuality of life adjustment range from a health state utility weight of 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health). Weights for cervical cancer varied according to stage (local: 0.76 for five years; regional: 0.67 for five years; distant: 0.48 five years). Disease specific utility weights were multiplied to baseline age-specific utility weights from Denmark(17) to estimate overall utility;

^dIncremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated as the incremental mean costs divided by the incremental mean effects of two strategies. The range in ICER values reflects the minimum and maximum ICERs across the 50 good-fitting parameter sets. (US $1=NOK6.30)