The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and risk factors for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the Southern region of the State of Bahia, evaluating the performance of alternative complementary methods for cervical lesion detection. Cervical samples from women who attended healthcare units were collected and diagnosed by visual inspection, cervical cytology and nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Moreover, hemi-nested PCR was performed to detect different HPV genotypes. The prevalence of HPV infection was 47·7%, with genotype 16 detected in most cases. Infection was associated with dyspareunia and bleeding (P < 0·001, odds ratio (OR) 5·6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2·815–11·14) and hormonal contraceptive use (P = 0·007, OR 2·33, 95% CI 1·25–4·34). There was a positive correlation between positive PCR and positive visual inspection, cervical cytology and symptoms reported. Furthermore, visual inspection was twice as specific, and had a greater positive predictive value than cytology. We showed a high prevalence of HPV infection in Southern Bahia, with HPV 16 being the most common type, and visual inspection being most effective at detecting HPV lesions, corroborating the suggestion that it can be applied in routine gynecologic examinations for low-income populations.

Objectives: A vaccine to prevent diseases due to human papillomavirus (HPV) types 6, 11, 16, and 18 is now available in France. The objective of this study was to assess the health and economic impact in France of implementing a quadrivalent HPV vaccine alongside existing screening practices versus screening alone.

Methods: A Markov model of the natural history of HPV infection incorporating screening and vaccination, was adapted to the French context. A vaccine that would prevent 100 percent of HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18-associated diseases, with lifetime duration and 80 percent coverage, given to girls at age 14 in conjunction with current screening was compared with screening alone. Results were analyzed from both a direct healthcare cost perspective (DCP) and a third-party payer perspective (TPP). Indirect costs such as productivity loss were not taken into account in this analysis.

Results: The incremental cost per life-year gained from vaccination was €12,429 (TPP) and €20,455 (DCP). The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for the introduction of HPV vaccination alongside the French cervical cancer screening program was €8,408 (TPP) and €13,809 (DCP). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that cost-effectiveness was stable, but was most sensitive to the discount rate used for costs and benefits.

Conclusions: Considering the commonly accepted threshold of €50,000 per QALY, these analyses support the fact that adding a quadrivalent HPV vaccine to the current screening program in France is a cost-effective strategy for reducing the burden of cervical cancer, precancerous lesions, and genital warts caused by HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18.

Objectives: This study was undertaken to understand how women view characteristics of tests for cervical dysplasia, because these characteristics can affect patient decision-making about screening and follow-up.

Methods: We recruited women who participated in a clinical trial of optical spectroscopy for the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia and used conjoint analysis to assess the women's preferences concerning test attributes. One group of women had a history of an abnormal Papanicolaou smear (diagnostic sample), while the other group did not (screening sample). Participants rated pairs of test scenarios that varied on characteristics such as test sensitivity and painfulness. Based on their responses, the relative importance of test sensitivity, specificity, timing of results feedback and treatment, and pain were calculated, and a cluster analysis was done to identify subgroups of participants with different preference patterns.

Results: In the overall sample, sensitivity was the most important attribute, followed by timing, specificity, and pain. Cluster analysis revealed four distinct groups who placed varying importance on each characteristic. The participants in the cluster for which pain was the most important attribute were more likely to be diagnostic patients, non-white, and have low education levels. They also reported more anxiety and pain during the examination than participants in other clusters.

Conclusions: To continue to reduce morbidity and mortality from cervical cancer, developers of new testing procedures should take into account test attributes such as these, which may affect adherence to screening and diagnostic follow-up to further minimize morbidity and mortality from cervical cancer.

Objectives: Time costs borne by women when undergoing cervical cancer screening have rarely been elucidated, although such costs may pose substantial barriers to care. The purpose of this project was to quantify the opportunity costs associated with cervical cancer screening in young women attending Planned Parenthood Clinics.

Methods: We conducted a self-report survey of 105 women from six clinics to measure travel, waiting, and exam times associated with cervical cancer screening. Respondents recorded their time of arrival and departure, length of time in the waiting room, age, income level, and hours per week they worked outside of the home. Time costs were valued three ways: through self-reported hourly wage, age- and gender-adjusted minimum earnings, and national age- and gender-adjusted hourly wages.

Results: Respondents were on average 24 years old, worked 29 hours per week outside the home, and earned less than $20,000 per year. Mean time for one-way travel was 18.7 minutes; waiting room time was 16.9 minutes; and exam time was 50.8 minutes. Time costs were estimated to be $14.08 per visit based upon the self-reported hourly wage; $16.46 per visit based upon age- and gender-adjusted minimum earnings; and $19.63 per visit based upon age- and gender-adjusted national wage rates.

Conclusions: Time costs associated with cervical cancer screening represent an important opportunity cost and should be considered in studies attempting to identify barriers to screening adherence. Our results indicate that time costs accounted for up to 25% of cervical cancer screening costs. Time costs should be identified, measured, valued, and included in cost-effectiveness analyses of cervical cancer screening.