American journal of preventive medicine
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial
Effect of a cancer screening intervention conducted by lay health workers among inner-city women.
We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine if an in-home educational intervention conducted by lay health workers (LHWs) could increase adherence among low-income, inner-city, African-American women to breast and cervical cancer screening schedules. ⋯ LHWs' intervention appeared to improve the rate at which inner-city women obtained CBEs and mammograms, but had no effect on Pap smears. A high attrition rate weakened our ability to make conclusive statements about the exact impact of the intervention.
-
Prevention is being promoted as a means to improve health status and to save health care costs. Economic evaluations of prevention (i.e., cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses) indicate that some prevention activities, like many treatments, do not save money, although many are relatively cost-effective. It has been suggested, however, that prevention is held to a higher standard than treatment because prevention programs are expected to demonstrate cost savings, and that the methods of economic evaluation understate the cost-effectiveness of prevention. Although the converse assertion is less commonly made, economic evaluations may also overstate the cost-effectiveness of prevention. The purpose of this article is to examine how the methods of economic evaluation may systematically understate, or overstate, the cost-effectiveness (or net benefits) of prevention. ⋯ We conclude that the methods of economic evaluation may both understate and overstate the cost-effectiveness of prevention.