SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Figure S1. Screening strategies evaluated in the cost-effectiveness analysis: +, positive HPV test; –, negative HPV test; Colp, referral for colposcopy; Cyt, indicates cytology; HPV, HPV DNA testing; t = 0, time of primary test; t = 6 and t = 18 indicates 6 and 18 months after the primary test, respectively.

Table S1. Efficient screening programmes, characterised by the screening strategy, the number of scheduled examinations, the screening interval and the age range that maximise the number of QALYs gained (discounted at 3%) relative to the costs (discounted at 3%). For each policy, the changes in costs and effects per 100 000 women and the ICER are given.

Table S2. Undiscounted effects per 100 000 simulated women in the efficient screening programmes shown in Table S1: total effects, from 2011 onwards, for the remainder of the lives of the simulated women.

Table S3. Sensitivity analyses: efficient screening programmes with ICERs just below the €20 000 and €50 000 per QALY cost-effectiveness thresholds, in various situations. All results are per 100 000 simulated women, discounted using a 3% rate for costs and effects, except for the sensitivity analysis using differential disco.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
BJO_3228_sm_FigS1.pdf90KSupporting info item
BJO_3228_sm_TableS1.pdf20KSupporting info item
BJO_3228_sm_TableS2.pdf27KSupporting info item
BJO_3228_sm_TableS3.pdf57KSupporting info item

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.