Quality of Life Research

, Volume 26, Issue 11, pp 2885–2897 | Cite as

Health-related quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D in the prevention, screening and management of cervical disease: A systematic review

  • A. Ó Céilleachair
  • J. F. O’Mahony
  • M. O’Connor
  • J. O’Leary
  • C. Normand
  • C. Martin
  • L. Sharp



Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of screening can be highly sensitive to the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) effects of screen tests and subsequent treatment. Accordingly, accurate assessment of HRQoL is essential. We reviewed the literature regarding HRQoL in cervical prevention and management in order to appraise the current evidence regarding this important input to CEA.


We searched the MEDLINE, Scopus and EconLit databases for studies that estimated HRQoL in cervical cancer prevention and management published January 1995–December 2015. The primary inclusion criterion was for studies that assess HRQoL using the EQ-5D. Data were abstracted from eligible studies on setting, elicitation group, sample size, elicitation instruments, health state valuations, study design and follow-up. We assessed the quality and comparability of the studies with a particular focus on the HRQoL reported across states and groups.


Fifteen papers met the inclusion criteria. Most used patient elicitation groups (n = 11), 2 used the general public and 2 used a mix of both. Eight studies were cross-sectional and seven were longitudinal. Six studies used both the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-VAS together with other measures of overall HRQoL or condition-specific instruments. Extensive heterogeneity was observed across study characteristics.


Our results reveal the challenges of sourcing reliable estimates of HRQoL for use in CEAs of cervical cancer prevention and treatment. The EQ-5D appears insufficiently sensitive for some health states. A more general problem is the paucity of HRQoL estimates for many health states and their change over time.


Health-related quality of life Health economics Screening Cervical cancer Human papillomavirus Systematic reviews 



This study was undertaken as part of the CERVIVA research consortium (www.cerviva.i.e.). AÓC (HRA-HSR/2012/30), JOM (ICE 2015-1037) and MOC (ICE 2015-1037) are supported by grants from the Health Research Board.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

No authors have a potential conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Bray, F., Ren, J.-S., Masuyer, E., & Ferlay, J. (2013). Global estimates of cancer prevalence for 27 sites in the adult population in 2008. International Journal of Cancer, 132(5), 1133–1145. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27711.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2005). IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention Vol. 10: Cervix Cancer Screening (p. 313). Lyons.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anttila, A., von Karsa, L., Aasmaa, A., Fender, M., Patnick, J., Rebolj, M., et al. (2009). Cervical cancer screening policies and coverage in Europe. European Journal of Cancer, 45(15), 2649–2658. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.07.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walboomers, J. M., Jacobs, M. V., Manos, M. M., Bosch, F. X., Kummer, J. A., Shah, K. V., et al. (1999). Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. The Journal of Pathology, 189(1), 12–19. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199909)189:1<12:AID-PATH431>3.0.CO;2-F.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arbyn, M., De Sanjosé, S., Saraiya, M., Sideri, M., Palefsky, J., Lacey, C., et al. (2012). EUROGIN 2011 roadmap on prevention and treatment of HPV-related disease. International Journal of Cancer, 131(9), 1969–1982.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhatia, R., Kavanagh, K., Cubie, H. A., Serrano, I., Wennington, H., Hopkins, M., et al. (2016). Use of HPV testing for cervical screening in vaccinated women-Insights from the SHEVa (Scottish HPV Prevalence in Vaccinated Women) study: Use of HPV Testing for Cervical Screening. International Journal of Cancer, 138(12), 2922–2931. doi: 10.1002/ijc.30030.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guan, P., Howell-Jones, R., Li, N., Bruni, L., de Sanjosé, S., Franceschi, S., et al. (2012). Human papillomavirus types in 115,789 HPV-positive women: a meta-analysis from cervical infection to cancer. International Journal of Cancer, 131(10), 2349–2359. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27485.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lehtinen, M., Paavonen, J., Wheeler, C. M., Jaisamrarn, U., Garland, S. M., Castellsagué, X., … HPV PATRICIA Study Group. (2012). Overall efficacy of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against grade 3 or greater cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: 4-year end-of-study analysis of the randomised, double-blind PATRICIA trial. The lancet Oncology, 13(1), 89–99. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70286-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brotherton, J. M., Fridman, M., May, C. L., Chappell, G., Saville, A. M., & Gertig, D. M. (2011). Early effect of the HPV vaccination programme on cervical abnormalities in Victoria, Australia: an ecological study. The Lancet, 377(9783), 2085–2092. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60551-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Palmer, T. J., McFadden, M., Pollock, K. G. J., Kavanagh, K., Cuschieri, K., Cruickshank, M., et al. (2016). HPV immunisation and cervical screening—confirmation of changed performance of cytology as a screening test in immunised women: a retrospective population-based cohort study. British Journal of Cancer, 114(5), 582–589. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.474.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Palmer, T. J., McFadden, M., Pollock, K. G. J., Kavanagh, K., Cuschieri, K., Cruickshank, M., et al. (2016). HPV immunisation and increased uptake of cervical screening in Scottish women; observational study of routinely collected national data. British Journal of Cancer, 114(5), 576–581. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.473.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim, J. J., Wright, T. C., & Goldie, S. J. (2002). Cost-effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. JAMA, 287(18), 2382–2390.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Retrieved from https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781
  14. 14.
    Health Information and Quality Authority. (2014). Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies in Ireland (Guidelines). Dublin, Ireland: Health Information and Quality Authority. Retrieved from https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiT8uqqqM7QAhWpIMAKHT4aAxoQFggfMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hiqa.ie%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2FHTA_Economic_Guidelines_2010.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGFcHjU2xjrOfE6hC4Ocqpv_AhxYw&sig2=AmhXqI0IR-pmO_TeHmU4awGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33, 337–343.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wisløff, T., Hagen, G., Hamidi, V., Movik, E., Klemp, M., & Olsen, J. A. (2014). Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: A review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. PharmacoEconomics, 32(4), 367–375. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0136-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Devlin, N. J., & Krabbe, P. F. M. (2013). The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L. The European Journal of Health Economics, 14(S1), 1–3. doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0502-3.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kavanagh, A. M., & Broom, D. H. (1997). Women’s understanding of abnormal cervical smear test results: a qualitative interview study. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 314(7091), 1388–1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gray, N. M., Sharp, L., Cotton, S. C., Masson, L. F., Little, J., Walker, L. G., et al. (2006). Psychological effects of a low-grade abnormal cervical smear test result: anxiety and associated factors. British Journal of Cancer, 94(9), 1253–1262. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603086.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    O'Connor, M., Gallagher, P., Waller, J., Martin, C. M., O'Leary, J. J., Sharp, L., & Irish Cervical Screening Research Consortium (CERVIVA). (2016). Adverse psychological outcomes following colposcopy and related procedures: a systematic review. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 123(1), 24–38. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gold, M. R., Franks, P., McCoy, K. I., & Fryback, D. G. (1998). Toward consistency in cost-utility analyses: using national measures to create condition-specific values. Medical Care, 36(6), 778–792.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Myers, E., Green, S., & Lipkus, I. (2004). Patient preferences for health states related to HPV infection: visual analogue scales vs. time trade-off elicitation. In Proceedings of the 21st International Papillomavirus Conference. Presented at the 21st International Papillomavirus Conference, Mexico City.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), 1006–1012. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Neumann, P. J., Greenberg, D., Olchanski, N. V., Stone, P. W., & Rosen, A. B. (2005). Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976–2001. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 8(1), 3–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04010.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    UNDP. (2015). Work for human development. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vistad, I., Fosså, S. D., & Dahl, A. A. (2006). A critical review of patient-rated quality of life studies of long-term survivors of cervical cancer. Gynecologic Oncology, 102(3), 563–572.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Woodhall, S., Eriksson, T., Nykanen, A.-M., Huhtala, H., Rissanen, P., Apter, D., et al. (2011). Impact of HPV vaccination on young women’s quality of life - a five year follow-up study. The European journal of contraception & reproductive health care: the official journal of the European Society of Contraception, 16(1), 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eriksson, T., Torvinen, S., Woodhall, S. C., Lehtinen, M., Apter, D., Harjula, K., et al. (2013). Impact of HPV16/18 vaccination on quality of life: a pilot study. The European journal of contraception & reproductive health care: the official journal of the European Society of Contraception, 18(5), 364–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maissi, E., Marteau, T. M., Hankins, M., Moss, S., Legood, R., & Gray, A. (2005). The psychological impact of human papillomavirus testing in women with borderline or mildly dyskaryotic cervical smear test results: 6-month follow-up. British Journal of Cancer, 92(6), 990–994.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Whynes, D. K., & Group, T. (2008). Correspondence between EQ-5D health state classifications and EQ VAS scores. Health and quality of life outcomes, 6, 94. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-6-94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pirotta, M., Ung, L., Stein, A., Conway, E. L., Mast, T. C., Fairley, C. K., et al. (2009). The psychosocial burden of human papillomavirus related disease and screening interventions. Sexually transmitted infections, 85(7), 508–513.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Drolet, M., Brisson, M., Maunsell, E., Franco, E. L., Coutlee, F., Ferenczy, A., et al. (2012). The psychosocial impact of an abnormal cervical smear result. Psycho-oncology, 21(10), 1071–1081.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Korfage, I. J., van Ballegooijen, M., Wauben, B., Looman, C. W. N., Habbema, J. D. F., & Essink-Bot, M.-L. (2012). Having a Pap smear, quality of life before and after cervical screening: a questionnaire study. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 119(8), 936–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Korfage, I. J., van Ballegooijen, M., Huveneers, H., & Essink-Bot, M.L. (2010). Anxiety and borderline PAP smear results. European Journal of Cancer, 46(1), 134–141. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Whynes, D. K., Woolley, C., Philips, Z., & Trial of Management of Borderline and Other Low-grade Abnormal smears Group. (2008). Management of low-grade cervical abnormalities detected at screening: which method do women prefer? Cytopathology: official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology, 19(6), 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Galante, J., Augustovski, F., Colantonio, L., Bardach, A., Caporale, J., Marti, S. G., et al. (2011). Estimation and comparison of EQ-5D health states’ utility weights for pneumococcal and human papillomavirus diseases in Argentina, Chile, and the United Kingdom. Value in health: the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 14(5 Suppl 1), S60–S64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Whynes, D. K. (2013). Does the correspondence between EQ-5D health state description and VAS score vary by medical condition? Health and quality of life outcomes, 11(101153626), 155.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Korfage, I. J., Essink-Bot, M.-L., Westenberg, S. M., Helmerhorst, T., Habbema, J. D. F., & van Ballegooijen, M. (2014). How distressing is referral to colposcopy in cervical cancer screening?: a prospective quality of life study. Gynecologic Oncology, 132(1), 142–148.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Murasawa, H., Konno, R., Okubo, I., & Arakawa, I. (2014). Evaluation of health-related quality of life for hypothesized medical states associated with cervical cancer. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 15(22), 9679–9685. doi: 10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.22.9679.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Marcellusi, A., Capone, A., Favato, G., Mennini, F. S., Baio, G., Haeussler, K., et al. (2015). Health utilities lost and risk factors associated with HPV-induced diseases in men and women: The HPV Italian collaborative study group. Clinical Therapeutics, 37(1), 156–167. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.11.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lang, H.-C. (2012). Quality of life, treatments, and patients’ willingness to pay for a complete remission of cervical cancer in Taiwan. Health Economics.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Murasawa, H., Konno, R., Okubo, I., & Arakawa, I. (2014). Evaluation of health-related quality of life for hypothesized medical states associated with cervical cancer. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP, 15(22), 9679–9685.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Parkin, D., Rice, N., & Devlin, N. (2010). Statistical analysis of EQ-5D profiles: does the use of value sets bias inference? Medical Decision Making, 30(5), 556–565. doi: 10.1177/0272989X09357473.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brooks, R. G. (2013). The EuroQol Group after 25 years. Dordrecht; New York: Springer. Retrieved from http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1030747
  45. 45.
    O’Connor, M., O’Leary, E., Waller, J., Gallagher, P., D’arcy, T., Flannelly, G., … Irish Cervical Screening Research Consortium (CERVIVA). (2015). Trends in, and predictors of, anxiety and specific worries following colposcopy: a 12-month longitudinal study. Psycho-Oncology. doi: 10.1002/pon.3980.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    McCaffery, K., Waller, J., Nazroo, J., & Wardle, J. (2006). Social and psychological impact of HPV testing in cervical screening: a qualitative study. Sexually transmitted infections, 82, 169–174. doi: 10.1136/sti.2005.016436.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Heinonen, A., Tapper, A.-M., Leminen, A., Sintonen, H., & Roine, R. P. (2013). Health-related quality of life and perception of anxiety in women with abnormal cervical cytology referred for colposcopy: An observational study. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, 169(2), 387–391. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.03.033.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gray, N. M., Sharp, L., Cotton, S. C., Avis, M., Philips, Z., Russell, I., et al. (2005). Developing a questionnaire to measure the psychosocial impact of an abnormal cervical smear result and its subsequent management: The TOMBOLA (Trial of Management of Borderline and Other Low-grade Abnormal smears) trial. Quality of Life Research, 14(6), 1553–1562.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Cancer Registry IrelandCorkIreland
  2. 2.Centre for Health Policy and ManagementTrinity CollegeDublinIreland
  3. 3.Coombe Women and Infants University HospitalDublinIreland
  4. 4.Institute of Health & SocietyNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations