This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

P. D. Donnelly, MPH, MBA, MB, ChB, MFHM
University of Wales College of Medicine Cardiff

Su Voi Lo, MRCP, MFPHM
South Glamorgan Health Authority Cathays Park, Cardiff, Wales

JAMA. 1996;275(2):111.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—Drs Lindfors and Rosenquist¹ present the results of an interesting intellectual exercise in their article on the cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening. We concede that such an exercise may have value in informing policy decisions given current imperfect knowledge. However, the usefulness of their model is severely restricted by the lack of consideration given to the undoubted disutility of screening.

This is particularly relevant when annual screens and screening in younger women are being advocated because screening this population increases the number of false positives. This issue cannot be avoided by suggesting that this model is designed to evaluate cost-effectiveness and not cost utility, for in an example such as breast cancer cost-effectiveness, analysis takes into account all of the potential advantages of screening without any of the disadvantages—principally the anxiety, fear, and discomfort associated with the screening process itself and the consequent diagnostic doubts and delay. . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?