RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Uganda experience-Using cost assessment of an established registry to project resources required to expand cancer registration
Wabinga, H., Subramanian, S., Nambooze, S., Amulen, P. M., Edwards, P., Joseph, R., Ogwang, M., Okongo, F., Parkin, D. M., & Tangka, F. (2016). Uganda experience-Using cost assessment of an established registry to project resources required to expand cancer registration. Cancer Epidemiology, 45(Suppl 1), S30-S36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2016.11.004
BACKGROUND: The 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.