[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Cost-effectiveness of Leveraging Social Determinants of Health to Improve Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer ScreeningA Systematic Review

Educational Objective
To learn the cost-effectiveness of leveraging social determinants of health to improve breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening.
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  What are the costs of interventions leveraging social determinants of health to improve breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening, and are they cost-effective?

Findings  In this systematic review of 30 unique economic evaluations, the median intervention cost per participant was $123.87, the median incremental cost per additional person screened was $250.37, and the median incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was $3120.00, which was considerably lower than an established conservative threshold for cost-effectiveness.

Meaning  This study found that interventions focused on social determinants of health to improve breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening appear to be cost-effective for underserved, vulnerable populations in the United States.

Abstract

Importance  Screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers in the United States has remained below the Healthy People 2020 goals, with evidence indicating that persistent screening disparities still exist. The US Department of Health and Human Services has emphasized cross-sectoral collaboration in aligning social determinants of health with public health and medical services. Examining the economics of intervening through these novel methods in the realm of cancer screening can inform program planners, health care providers, implementers, and policy makers.

Objective  To conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions leveraging social determinants of health to improve screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer to guide implementation.

Evidence Review  A systematic literature search for economic evidence was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Global Health, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, EconLit, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), and Sociological Abstracts from January 1, 2004, to November 25, 2019. Included studies intervened on social determinants of health to improve breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the United States and reported intervention cost, incremental cost per additional person screened, and/or incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Risk of bias was assessed along with qualitative assessment of quality to ensure complete reporting of economic measures, data sources, and analytic methods. In addition, included studies with modeled outcomes had to define structural elements and sources for input parameters, distinguish between programmatic and literature-derived data, and assess uncertainty.

Findings  Thirty unique articles with 94 706 real and 4.21 million simulated participants satisfied our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The median intervention cost per participant was $123.87 (interquartile interval [IQI], $24.44-$313.19; 34 estimates). The median incremental cost per additional person screened was $250.37 (IQI, $44.67-$609.38; 17 estimates). Studies that modeled final economic outcomes had a median incremental cost per person of $122.96 (IQI, $46.96-$124.80; 5 estimates), a median incremental screening rate of 15% (IQI, 14%-20%; 5 estimates), and a median incremental QALY per person of 0.04 years (IQI, 0.006-0.06 year; 5 estimates). The median incremental cost per QALY gained of $3120.00 (IQI, $782.59-$33 600.00; 5 estimates) was lower than $50 000, an established, conservative threshold of cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions and Relevance  Interventions focused on social determinants of health to improve breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening appear to be cost-effective for underserved, vulnerable populations in the United States. The increased screening rates were associated with earlier diagnosis and treatment and in improved health outcomes with significant gains in QALYs. These findings represent the latest economic evidence to guide implementation of these interventions, which serve the dual purpose of enhancing health equity and economic efficiency.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships. If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: March 20, 2020.

Corresponding Author: Giridhar Mohan, MPH, Office of the Director, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, Mailstop S106-7, Atlanta, GA 30329 (gmohan@cdc.gov).

Published Online: June 18, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1460

Author Contributions: Mr Mohan and Dr Chattopadhyay had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Both authors.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Both authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Both authors.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Both authors.

Statistical analysis: Mohan.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Mohan.

Supervision: Both authors.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Additional Information: This paper has been reviewed and approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the National Center for Environmental Health, the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, and the Office of the Associate Director for Policy and Strategy).

References
1.
Turner  A .  The Business Case for Racial Equity. WK Kellogg Foundation; 2018.
2.
Hall  IJ , Tangka  FKL , Sabatino  SA , Thompson  TD , Graubard  BI , Breen  N .  Patterns and trends in cancer screening in the United States.   Prev Chronic Dis. 2018;15:E97. doi:10.5888/pcd15.170465 PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
White  A , Thompson  TD , White  MC ,  et al.  Cancer screening test use: United States, 2015.   MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(8):201-206. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6608a1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
DeSalvo  KB , Wang  YC , Harris  A , Auerbach  J , Koo  D , O’Carroll  P .  Public health 3.0: a call to action for public health to meet the challenges of the 21st century.   Prev Chronic Dis. 2017;14:E78. doi:10.5888/pcd14.170017 PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
World Health Organization. What are social determinants of health? Updated My 7, 2017. Accessed October 27, 2019. https://www.who.int/social_determinants/sdh_definition/en/
6.
National Association of County and City Health Officials. Public health 3.0: transforming communities. Updated December 14, 2016. Accessed December 13, 2019. https://www.naccho.org/programs/public-health-infrastructure/public-health-3-0
7.
National Interoperability Collaborative. Partnerships, programs, and platforms: addressing social determinants of health through multi-sector data sharing. Published April 2019. Accessed December 13, 2019. https://www.academyhealth.org/sites/default/files/partnerships_programs_platforms_april2019.pdf
8.
National Association of Chronic Disease Directors. Socially determined public health 3.0. Posted May 29, 2019. Accessed December 13, 2019. https://www.chronicdisease.org/store/ViewProduct.aspx?id=14130300
9.
Azar  AM . The root of the problem: America's social determinants of health [press release]. Hatch Foundation for Civility and Solutions. Posted November 18, 2018. Accessed December 13, 2019. https://www.hhs.gov/about/leadership/secretary/speeches/2018-speeches/the-root-of-the-problem-americas-social-determinants-of-health.html
10.
US Department of Health and Human Services. HHS announces the nation’s new health promotion and disease prevention agenda. Posted December 2, 2010. Accessed December 13, 2019. https://www.healthypeople.gov/sites/default/files/DefaultPressRelease_1.pdf
11.
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020: social determinants of health. Updated May 8, 2020. Accessed October 26, 2019. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-of-health
12.
Artiga  S , Hinton  E . Beyond Health Care: The Role of Social Determinants in Promoting Health and Health Equity. Published May 10, 2018. Accessed November 28, 2019. https://www.kff.org/disparities-policy/issue-brief/beyond-health-care-the-role-of-social-determinants-in-promoting-health-and-health-equity/
13.
Mohan  G , Chattopadhyay  SK , Ekwueme  DU ,  et al; Community Preventive Services Task Force.  Economics of multicomponent interventions to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening: a community guide systematic review.   Am J Prev Med. 2019;57(4):557-567. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2019.03.006 PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Moher  D , Liberati  A , Tetzlaff  J , Altman  DG ; PRISMA Group.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.   PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Sterne  JAC , Savović  J , Page  MJ ,  et al.  RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.   BMJ. 2019;366:4898. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898Google Scholar
16.
Sterne  JA , Hernán  MA , Reeves  BC ,  et al.  ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.   BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Wolff  RF , Moons  KGM , Riley  RD ,  et al; PROBAST Group†.  PROBAST: a tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies.   Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(1):51-58. doi:10.7326/M18-1376 PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
McGuinness LA. Robvis: an R package and web application for visualising risk-of-bias assessments [computer program]. R Institute for Statistical Analysis; 2019.
19.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor. Consumer price Index. Posted January 11, 2019. Accessed October 28, 2019. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/
20.
Neumann  PJ , Cohen  JT , Weinstein  MC .  Updating cost-effectiveness–the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold.   N Engl J Med. 2014;371(9):796-797. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1405158PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Allaire  BT , Ekweme  D , Hoerger  TJ ,  et al.  Cost-effectiveness of patient navigation for breast cancer screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.   Cancer Causes Control. 2019;30(9):923-929. doi:10.1007/s10552-019-01200-3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
Li  Y , Carlson  E , Hernández  DA ,  et al.  Patient perception and cost-effectiveness of a patient navigation program to improve breast cancer screening for Hispanic women.   Health Equity. 2019;3(1):280-286. doi:10.1089/heq.2018.0089 PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
Carkaci  S , Geiser  WR , Adrada  BE , Marquez  C , Whitman  GJ .  How to establish a cost-effective mobile mammography program.   AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(5):W691-7. doi:10.2214/AJR.12.9825 PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
Donaldson  EA , Holtgrave  DR , Duffin  RA , Feltner  F , Funderburk  W , Freeman  HP .  Patient navigation for breast and colorectal cancer in 3 community hospital settings: an economic evaluation.   Cancer. 2012;118(19):4851-4859. doi:10.1002/cncr.27487 PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Lairson  DR , Chang  YC , Byrd  TL , Lee Smith  J , Fernandez  ME , Wilson  KM .  Cervical cancer screening with AMIGAS: a cost-effectiveness analysis.   Am J Prev Med. 2014;46(6):617-623. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.01.020 PubMedGoogle Scholar
26.
Li  Y , Carlson  E , Villarreal  R , Meraz  L , Pagán  JA .  Cost-effectiveness of a patient navigation program to improve cervical cancer screening.   Am J Manag Care. 2017;23(7):429-434.PubMedGoogle Scholar
27.
Meghea  CI , Williams  KP .  Aligning cost assessment with community-based participatory research: the Kin KeeperSM intervention.   Health Educ Behav. 2015;42(2):148-152. doi:10.1177/1090198114557126 PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
Naeim  A , Keeler  E , Bassett  LW , Parikh  J , Bastani  R , Reuben  DB .  Cost-effectiveness of increasing access to mammography through mobile mammography for older women.   J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(2):285-290. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02105.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Phillips  L , Hendren  S , Humiston  S , Winters  P , Fiscella  K .  Improving breast and colon cancer screening rates: a comparison of letters, automated phone calls, or both.   J Am Board Fam Med. 2015;28(1):46-54. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2015.01.140174 PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Schuster  ALR , Frick  KD , Huh  BY , Kim  KB , Kim  M , Han  HR .  Economic evaluation of a community health worker-led health literacy intervention to promote cancer screening among Korean American women.   J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2015;26(2):431-440. doi:10.1353/hpu.2015.0050 PubMedGoogle Scholar
31.
Scoggins  JF , Ramsey  SD , Jackson  JC , Taylor  VM .  Cost effectiveness of a program to promote screening for cervical cancer in the Vietnamese-American population.   Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2010;11(3):717-722.PubMedGoogle Scholar
32.
Slater  JS , Parks  MJ , Malone  ME , Henly  GA , Nelson  CL .  Coupling financial incentives with direct mail in population-based practice.   Health Educ Behav. 2017;44(1):165-174. doi:10.1177/1090198116646714 PubMedGoogle Scholar
33.
Thompson  B , Carosso  EA , Jhingan  E ,  et al.  Results of a randomized controlled trial to increase cervical cancer screening among rural Latinas.   Cancer. 2017;123(4):666-674. doi:10.1002/cncr.30399 PubMedGoogle Scholar
34.
Thompson  B , Thompson  AL , Chan  NL , Hislop  GT , Taylor  VM .  Cost effectiveness of cervical cancer screening among Chinese women in North America.   Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2007;8(2):287-293.PubMedGoogle Scholar
35.
Rice  K , Sharma  K , Li  C , Butterly  L , Gersten  J , DeGroff  A .  Cost-effectiveness of a patient navigation intervention to increase colonoscopy screening among low-income adults in New Hampshire.   Cancer. 2019;125(4):601-609. doi:10.1002/cncr.31864 PubMedGoogle Scholar
36.
Lairson  DR , Kim  J , Byrd  T , Salaiz  R , Shokar  NK .  Cost-effectiveness of community interventions for colorectal cancer screening: low-income Hispanic population.   Health Promot Pract. 2018;19(6):863-872. doi:10.1177/1524839917750815 PubMedGoogle Scholar
37.
Baker  DW , Brown  T , Buchanan  DR ,  et al.  Comparative effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence to annual colorectal cancer screening in community health centers: a randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(8):1235-1241. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.2352 PubMedGoogle Scholar
38.
Green  BB , Wang  CY , Anderson  ML ,  et al.  An automated intervention with stepped increases in support to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial.   Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(5, pt 1):301-311. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-5-201303050-00002 PubMedGoogle Scholar
39.
Kim  B , Lairson  DR , Chung  TH , Kim  J , Shokar  NK .  Budget impact analysis of Against Colorectal Cancer in Our Neighborhoods (ACCION): a successful community-based colorectal cancer screening program for a medically underserved minority population.   Value Health. 2017;20(6):809-818. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.025PubMedGoogle Scholar
40.
Lairson  DR , Dicarlo  M , Deshmuk  AA ,  et al.  Cost-effectiveness of a standard intervention versus a navigated intervention on colorectal cancer screening use in primary care.   Cancer. 2014;120(7):1042-1049. doi:10.1002/cncr.28535PubMedGoogle Scholar
41.
Lairson  DR , DiCarlo  M , Myers  RE ,  et al.  Cost-effectiveness of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening use.   Cancer. 2008;112(4):779-788. doi:10.1002/cncr.23232 PubMedGoogle Scholar
42.
Larkey  LK , Herman  PM , Roe  DJ ,  et al.  A cancer screening intervention for underserved Latina women by lay educators.   J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012;21(5):557-566. doi:10.1089/jwh.2011.3087 PubMedGoogle Scholar
43.
Lee  JK , Groessl  EJ , Ganiats  TG , Ho  SB .  Cost-effectiveness of a mailed educational reminder to increase colorectal cancer screening.   BMC Gastroenterol. 2011;11:93:1-8. doi:10.1186/1471-230X-11-93 PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
Liss  DT , French  DD , Buchanan  DR ,  et al.  Outreach for annual colorectal cancer screening: a budget impact analysis for community health centers.   Am J Prev Med. 2016;50(2):e54-e61. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2015.07.003 PubMedGoogle Scholar
45.
Meenan  RT , Anderson  ML , Chubak  J ,  et al.  An economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening in primary care practice.   Am J Prev Med. 2015;48(6):714-721. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.12.016 PubMedGoogle Scholar
46.
Schlichting  JA , Mengeling  MA , Makki  NM ,  et al.  Increasing colorectal cancer screening in an overdue population: participation and cost impacts of adding telephone calls to a FIT mailing program.   J Community Health. 2014;39(2):239-247. doi:10.1007/s10900-014-9830-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
47.
Sequist  TD , Franz  C , Ayanian  JZ .  Cost-effectiveness of patient mailings to promote colorectal cancer screening.   Med Care. 2010;48(6):553-557. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181dbd8eb PubMedGoogle Scholar
48.
Shokar  NK , Byrd  T , Lairson  DR ,  et al.  Against colorectal cancer in our neighborhoods, a community-based colorectal cancer screening program targeting low-income Hispanics: program development and costs.   Health Promot Pract. 2015;16(5):656-666. doi:10.1177/1524839915587265 PubMedGoogle Scholar
49.
Smith  DH , Feldstein  AC , Perrin  N ,  et al.  Automated telephone calls to enhance colorectal cancer screening: economic analysis.   Am J Manag Care. 2012;18(11):691-699.PubMedGoogle Scholar
50.
Wilson  FA , Villarreal  R , Stimpson  JP , Pagán  JA .  Cost-effectiveness analysis of a colonoscopy screening navigator program designed for Hispanic men.   J Cancer Educ. 2015;30(2):260-267. doi:10.1007/s13187-014-0718-7 PubMedGoogle Scholar
51.
Pignone  M , Saha  S , Hoerger  T , Lohr  KN , Teutsch  S , Mandelblatt  J .  Challenges in systematic reviews of economic analyses.   Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(12 Pt 2):1073-1079. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_Part_2-200506211-00007PubMedGoogle Scholar
52.
Moons  KGM , Wolff  RF , Riley  RD ,  et al.  PROBAST: a tool to assess risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies: explanation and elaboration.   Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(1):W1-W33. doi:10.7326/M18-1377 PubMedGoogle Scholar
53.
Dean  HD , Williams  KM , Fenton  KA .  From theory to action: applying social determinants of health to public health practice.   Public Health Rep. 2013;128(suppl 3):1-4. doi:10.1177/00333549131286S301Google Scholar
54.
Rice  T .  The behavioral economics of health and health care.   Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34(1):431-447. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114353Google Scholar
55.
Purnell  JQ , Thompson  T , Kreuter  MW , McBride  TD .  Behavioral economics: “nudging” underserved populations to be screened for cancer.   Prev Chronic Dis. 2015;12:E06-E06. doi:10.5888/pcd12.140346 PubMedGoogle Scholar
56.
Daniel  H , Bornstein  SS , Kane  GC ; Health and Public Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians.  addressing social determinants to improve patient care and promote health equity: an American College of Physicians position paper.   Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(8):577-578. doi:10.7326/M17-2441 PubMedGoogle Scholar
57.
Bonevski  B , Randell  M , Paul  C ,  et al.  Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups.   BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:42-42. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-42 PubMedGoogle Scholar
Close
Want full access to the AMA Ed Hub?
After you sign up for AMA Membership, make sure you sign in or create a Physician account with the AMA in order to access all learning activities on the AMA Ed Hub
Buy this activity
Close
Want full access to the AMA Ed Hub?
After you sign up for AMA Membership, make sure you sign in or create a Physician account with the AMA in order to access all learning activities on the AMA Ed Hub
Buy this activity
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Close
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close

My Saved Courses

You currently have no courses saved.

Close