Quality of Life Research

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 801–814

Quality of life valuations of mammography screening

  • Amy E. Bonomi
  • Denise M. Boudreau
  • Paul A. Fishman
  • Evette Ludman
  • Amy Mohelnitzky
  • Elizabeth A. Cannon
  • Deb Seger
Article

DOI: 10.1007/s11136-008-9353-2

Cite this article as:
Bonomi, A.E., Boudreau, D.M., Fishman, P.A. et al. Qual Life Res (2008) 17: 801. doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9353-2

Abstract

Objective To obtain quality-of-life (QOL) valuations associated with mammography screening and breast cancer treatment that are suitable for use in cost-effectiveness analyses.

Methods Subjects comprised 131 women (age range 50–79 years) randomly sampled from a breast cancer screening program. In an in-person or telephone interview, women rated the QOL impact of 14 clinical scenarios (ranging from mammography to end-of-life care for breast cancer) using a visual analogue scale anchored by death (0) and perfect health/quality of life (100).

Results Women rated the scenarios describing true negative results, false positive results, and routine screening mammography at 80 or above on a scale of 0–100, suggesting that they perceive these states as being close to perfect health. They rated adjuvant chemotherapy (39.7; range 10–90), palliation/end-of-life care (35.8; range 0–100), and recurrence at 1 year (33.0; range 0–95) the lowest, suggesting that these health states are perceived as compromised. Women rated receiving news of a breast cancer diagnosis (true positive) (45.7; range 5–100) and receiving delayed news of a breast cancer diagnosis (false negative) (48.5; range 5–100) as being comparable to undergoing mastectomy (48.3; range 10–100) and radiation therapy (46.2; range 5–100) for breast cancer.

Conclusions These data can be used to update cost analyses of mammography screening that wish to take into account the QOL impact of screening.

Keywords

Breast cancer screening Cost-effectiveness Mammography Quality of life Valuations 

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy E. Bonomi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Denise M. Boudreau
    • 2
  • Paul A. Fishman
    • 2
  • Evette Ludman
    • 2
  • Amy Mohelnitzky
    • 2
  • Elizabeth A. Cannon
    • 1
  • Deb Seger
    • 2
  1. 1.Human Development and Family ScienceThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Center for Health StudiesGroup Health CooperativeSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations