↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening and preventative cryotherapy at an HIV treatment clinic in Kenya

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening and preventative cryotherapy at an HIV treatment clinic in Kenya
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12962-017-0075-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marita R. Zimmermann, Elisabeth Vodicka, Joseph B. Babigumira, Timothy Okech, Nelly Mugo, Samah Sakr, Louis P. Garrison, Michael H. Chung

Abstract

This study evaluated the potential cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening in HIV treatment clinics in Nairobi, Kenya. A Markov model was used to project health outcomes and costs of cervical cancer screening and cryotherapy at an HIV clinic in Kenya using cryotherapy without screening, visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), Papanicolaou smear (Pap), and testing for human papillomavirus (HPV). Direct and indirect medical and non-medical costs were examined from societal and clinic perspectives. Costs of cryotherapy, VIA, Pap, and HPV for women with CD4 200-500 cells/mL were $99, $196, $219, and $223 from a societal perspective and $19, $94, $124, and $113 from a clinic perspective, with 17.3, 17.1, 17.1, and 17.1 years of life expectancy, respectively. Women at higher CD4 counts (>500 cells/mL) given cryotherapy VIA, Pap, and HPV resulted in better life expectancies (19.9+ years) and lower cost (societal: $49, $99, $115, and $102; clinic: $13, $51, $71, and $56). VIA was less expensive than HPV unless HPV screening could be reduced to a single visit. Preventative cryotherapy was the least expensive strategy and resulted in highest projected life expectancy, while VIA was most cost-effective unless HPV could be reduced to a single visit.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 31%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 16%
Social Sciences 6 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 9 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 August 2017.
All research outputs
#8,926,123
of 11,614,551 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#135
of 183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,236
of 262,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,614,551 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,592 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.