Objective To estimate the cost effectiveness of alternative methods of managing low grade cervical cytological abnormalities detected at routine screening.Design Cost analysis within multicentre individually randomised controlled trial.Setting Grampian, Tayside, and Nottingham.Participants 4201 women with low grade abnormalities.Interventions Cytological surveillance or referral to colposcopy for biopsy and recall if necessary or referral to colposcopy with immediate treatment based on colposcopic appearance.Main outcome measures Data on resource use collected from participants throughout the duration of the trial (36 months), enabling the estimation of both the direct (health care) and indirect (time and travel) costs of management. Quality of life assessed at recruitment and at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months, using the EQ-5D instrument. Economic outcomes expressed as costs per case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (grade II or worse) detected, by trial arm, as confirmed at exit, and cost utility ratios (cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained) for the three pairwise comparisons of trial arms.Results The mean three year discounted costs of surveillance, immediate treatment, and biopsy and recall were 150.20 pound ((sic)177, $249), 240.30 pound ((sic)283, $415), and 241.10 pound ((sic)284, $4000), respectively, viewed from the health service perspective. From the social perspective, mean discounted costs were 204.40 pound ((sic)241, $339), 339.90 pound ((sic)440, $563), and 327.50 pound ((sic)386, $543), respectively. Estimated at the means, the incremental cost effectiveness ratios indicated that immediate treatment was dominated by the other two management methods, although it did offer the lowest cost per case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia detected and treated. The pronounced skews in the distributions indicated that probabilistic uncertainty analysis would offer more meaningful estimates of cost effectiveness. The observed differences in the cost effectiveness ratios between trial arms were not significant.Conclusion Judged within the time frame of the TOMBOLA evaluation, there is no compelling economic reason to favour any one follow-up method over either of the others.

Background and Objectives: It is important to maximize response rates to postal questionnaires. We compared the impact of three low-cost interventions on response rates.Methods: A 2 X 2 X 2 factorial trial was conducted, nested within TOMBOLA (Trial Of Management of Borderline and Other Lowgrade Abnormal smears). Three interventions were evaluated: (1) enclosing a TOMBOLA-branded pen with the questionnaire (as opposed to no pen); (2) sending the questionnaires by first class post (as opposed to second class); and (3) enclosing a preaddressed return envelope on which there was a second class postage stamp (rather than a freepost business-reply envelope). Nine hundred thirty women, aged 20-59 years, due to receive a TOMBOLA psychosocial questionnaire by post during June-August 2003 were randomized.Results: Enclosing a pen resulted in a statistically significant 7.0% increase in the cumulative proportion of questionnaires returned (from 61.5 to 68.5%; P =.002). The adjusted odds of response was significantly raised (odds ratio [OR] = 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.82). Neither first class post nor providing a stamped envelope had a significant impact on response. There were no interactions between the interventions.Conclusions: Enclosing a pen with a questionnaire can significantly increase response. This low-cost strategy was effective against a background of "good practice" with regard to the administration of postal questionnaires. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.