Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Multistage regression analysis reveals government-organized screening decreases economic burden in cervical cancer patients, highlighting significant mediating pathways.
Objective: To evaluate the impact of government-organized screening on the economic burden among patients with cervical cancer and precancerous lesions, and explore mediating pathways across diagnosis, initial treatment, radiotherapy/chemotherapy, follow-up, and recurrence/progression/metastasis. Methods: A multicentre, nationwide survey across 5 disease courses was conducted from 26 hospitals in China. Multivariable regression and structural equation modeling were used to assess the effects of government-organized screening on economic burden by comparing government-organized screening with workplace check-up, self-paid check-up, and symptom-based detection. Results: Workplace check-up, self-paid check-up, and symptom-based detection were associated with progressively higher costs across diagnosis [β: 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.54–1.67; β: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.00–1.92; and β: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.25–2.11, respectively], initial treatment (β: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.18–0.55; β: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.35–0.66; and β: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.42–0.70, respectively), and follow-up (β: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.38–0.88; β: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.61–1.04; and β: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.65–1.06, respectively) compared to government-organized screening (all P < 0.05). Earlier clinical staging and greater use of lower-level hospitals mediated 44.74%–54.97% of cost differences in diagnosis, 73.27%–85.04% in initial treatment, and 30.38%–54.73% in follow-up. Fifteen percent of the cost differences during initial treatment were related to lower overtreatment for precancerous lesions. Conclusions: Government-led cervical cancer screening was associated with lower economic burden with pathways involving earlier-stage diagnosis, reduced overtreatment, and decreased reliance on higher-level hospitals, suggesting potential clinical benefits, efficient resource use, and improved equity in cancer care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dong et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: