Population Health and Health Inequality Impacts of the National Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programme (NAAASP) in England
PurposeWe conducted a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) using routinely collected data to estimate the population health and health inequality impacts of the National Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programme (NAAASP) in England.MethodsAn existing discrete event simulation model of AAA screening was adapted to examine differences between socioeconomic groups defined by Index of Multiple Deprivation, obtained from an analysis of secondary data sources. We examined the distributional cost-effectiveness of being invited versus not invited at age 65 y to screen using a National Health Service perspective. Changes in inequality were valued using a measure of equally distributed equivalent health.ResultsThe net health benefits of population screening (317 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] gained) were disproportionately accounted for by the effects on those living in more advantaged areas. The NAAASP improved health on average compared with no screening, but the health opportunity cost of the programme exceeded the QALY gains for people living in the most deprived areas, resulting in a negative net health impact for this group (106 QALYs lost) that was driven by differences in the need for screening. Consequently, the NAAASP increased health inequality at the population level. Given current estimates for inequality aversion in England, screening for AAA remains the optimal strategy.ConclusionExamination of the distributional cost-effectiveness of the NAAASP in England using routinely collected data revealed a tradeoff between total population health and health inequality. Study findings suggest that the NAAASP provides value for money despite health impacts being disseminated to those who are more advantaged.HighlightsThis study examines the population health and health inequality effects of the National Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programme (NAAASP) between socioeconomic groups defined by Index of Multiple Deprivation.Findings suggest a tradeoff between total population health and health inequality.Given current estimates for inequality aversion in England, screening remains the optimal strategy relative to not screening.Opportunities remain to reduce inequality effects for those most vulnerable through targeted approaches.
Authors
- Susan Griffin (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2188-8400)
- James Love-Koh (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9009-5346)
- Michael Sweeting (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0980-8965)
- Shainur Premji (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9951-5244)
- Simon Walker (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5750-3691)
- Matthew Glover (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9454-2668)
Institutions
- University of Leicester (GB)
- University of Surrey (GB)
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (GB)
- University of York (GB)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Medical Decision Making
- Published
- 2025-11-13
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x251388481
- Primary Topic
- Aortic aneurysm repair treatments
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00