Uganda experience—Using cost assessment of an established registry to project resources required to expand cancer registration

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorWabinga, Henry
dc.contributor.authorSubramanian, Sujha
dc.contributor.authorNambooze, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorMary Amulen, Phoebe
dc.contributor.authorEdwards, Patrick
dc.contributor.authorJoseph, Rachael
dc.contributor.authorOgwang, Martin
dc.contributor.authorOkongo, Francis
dc.contributor.authorParkin, D. Maxwell
dc.contributor.authorTangka, Florence
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-29T15:41:36Z
dc.date.available2022-04-29T15:41:36Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.description.abstractThe objectives of this study are (1) to estimate the cost of operating the Kampala Cancer Registry (KCR) and (2) to use cost data from the KCR to project the resource needs and cost of expanding and sustaining cancer registration in Uganda, focusing on the recently established Gulu Cancer Registry (GCR) in rural Northern Uganda. Methods: We used Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) International Registry Costing Tool (IntRegCosting Tool) to estimate the KCR’s activity-based cost for 2014. We grouped the registry activities into fixed cost, variable core cost, and variable other cost activities. After a comparison KCR and GCR characteristics, we used the cost of the KCR to project the likely ongoing costs for the new GCR. Results: The KCR incurred 42% of its expenditures in fixed cost activities, 40% for variable core cost activities, and the remaining 18% for variable other cost activities. The total cost per case registered was 28,201 Ugandan shillings (approximately US $10 in 2014) to collect and report cases using a combination of passive and active cancer data collection approaches. The GCR performs only active data collection, and covers a much larger area, but serves a smaller population compared to the KCR. Conclusion: After identifying many differences between KCR and GCR that could potentially affect the cost of registration, our best estimate is that the GCR, though newer and in a rural area, should require fewer resources than the KCR to sustain operations as a stand-alone entity. The optimal structure of the GCR needs to be determined in the future.en_US
dc.identifier.citationWabinga, H., Subramanian, S., Nambooze, S., Amulen, P. M., Edwards, P., Joseph, R., ... & Tangka, F. (2016). Uganda experience—using cost assessment of an established registry to project resources required to expand cancer registration. Cancer epidemiology, 45, S30-S36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2016.11.004en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2016.11.004
dc.identifier.urihttps://nru.uncst.go.ug/handle/123456789/2998
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherCancer epidemiologyen_US
dc.subjectUgandaen_US
dc.subjectKampala Cancer Registryen_US
dc.subjectGulu Cancer Registryen_US
dc.subjectActivity-based costen_US
dc.subjectEconomic evaluationen_US
dc.titleUganda experience—Using cost assessment of an established registry to project resources required to expand cancer registrationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Uganda experience.pdf
Size:
855.75 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Article
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Medical and Health Sciences