Literature DB >> 11292133

Radiotherapy service delivery models for a dispersed patient population.

P Dunscombe1, G Roberts.   

Abstract

Access to health care interventions can be impeded when significant patient travel is required. In this economic evaluation we compare, from a societal perspective, three scenarios for the delivery of radiation treatment to an idealized population of 1,600 patients distributed between two urban nodes (1,200 + 400 patients each) separated by up to 500 km. As it is implicitly assumed that the clinical outcome for those patients who access the system is independent of the service delivery model, this study constitutes a cost minimization analysis from a societal perspective. The costs to the health care system are based on an activity costing model developed by us and consistent with recent Canadian studies. The costs to the patient are approximated by a formula that includes direct costs (travel and accommodation) and indirect (time) costs, with the latter based on a human capital approach. A sensitivity analysis has been performed to confirm the robustness of our conclusions both to uncertainties in the input data and to the inclusion of time costs, the estimation of which remains controversial. From a societal cost perspective only, we show that outreach radiotherapy (central comprehensive facility and satellite) is the economically superior service delivery model for separations between 30 km and 170 km. Beyond 170 km, a fully decentralized service would be warranted if the only consideration were societal economic advantage.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11292133     DOI: 10.1053/clon.2001.9211

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)        ISSN: 0936-6555            Impact factor:   4.126


  6 in total

1.  Reasons for self-reported unmet healthcare needs in Canada: a population-based provincial comparison.

Authors:  Lyn M Sibley; Richard H Glazier
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2009-08

2.  Defining the elements for successful implementation of a small-city radiotherapy department.

Authors:  P S Craighead; P Dunscombe
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  Decentralisation of radiation therapy. Is it possible and beneficial to patients? Experience of the first 5 years of a satellite radiotherapy unit in the province of Tarragona, Spain.

Authors:  Meritxell Arenas; David Gomez; Sebastià Sabater; Angeles Rovirosa; Albert Biete; Jordi Colomer
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2014-11-08

Review 4.  Planning national radiotherapy services.

Authors:  Eduardo Rosenblatt
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 5.  Barriers to accessing radiation therapy in Canada: a systematic review.

Authors:  Caitlin Gillan; Kaleigh Briggs; Alejandro Goytisolo Pazos; Melanie Maurus; Nicole Harnett; Pamela Catton; David Wiljer
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2012-10-12       Impact factor: 3.481

6.  How do surgeons decide to refer patients for adjuvant cancer treatment? Protocol for a qualitative study.

Authors:  Robin Urquhart; Cynthia Kendell; Joan Sargeant; Gordon Buduhan; Paul Johnson; Daniel Rayson; Eva Grunfeld; Geoffrey A Porter
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2012-10-25       Impact factor: 7.327

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.