Literature DB >> 23974962

The influence of waiting times on cost-effectiveness: a case study of colorectal cancer mass screening.

Pauline Chauvin1, Jean-Michel Josselin, Denis Heresbach.   

Abstract

When a cost-effectiveness analysis is implemented, the health-care system is usually assumed to adjust smoothly to the proposed new strategy. However, technological innovations in health care may often induce friction in the organization of care supply, implying the congestion of services and subsequent waiting times. Our objective here is to measure how these short run rigidities can challenge cost-effectiveness recommendations favorable to an innovative mass screening test for colorectal cancer. Using Markov modeling, we compare the standard Guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) with an innovative screening test for colorectal cancer, namely the immunological fecal occult blood test (iFOBT). Waiting time can occur between a positive screening test and the subsequent confirmation colonoscopy. Five scenarios are considered for iFOBT: no further waiting time compared with gFOBT, twice as much waiting time for a period of 5 or 10 years, and twice as much waiting time for a period of 5 or 10 years combined with a 25% decrease in participation to confirmation colonoscopies. According to our modeling, compared with gFOBT, iFOBT would approximately double colonoscopy demand. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis enables concluding that the waiting time significantly increases the uncertainty surrounding recommendations favorable to iFOBT if it induces a decrease in the adherence rate for confirmation colonoscopy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23974962     DOI: 10.1007/s10198-013-0525-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Health Econ        ISSN: 1618-7598


  35 in total

1.  A game theoretic model of the relationship between prices and waiting times.

Authors:  Michael G Farnworth
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Influence of waiting time on cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  M A Koopmanschap; W B F Brouwer; L Hakkaart-van Roijen; N J A van Exel
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2004-12-16       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  The management of small polyps found by virtual colonoscopy: results of a decision analysis.

Authors:  Chin Hur; Daniel C Chung; Robert E Schoen; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 11.382

4.  Colorectal cancer in France.

Authors:  Karine Chevreul
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2010-01

5.  Incremental net benefit and acceptability of alternative health policies: a case study of mass screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Pauline Chauvin; Jean-Michel Josselin; Denis Heresbach
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-02-09

6.  A model to correct for short-run inefficiencies in economic evaluations in healthcare.

Authors:  Gijs Van de Wetering; Willem H Woertman; Eddy M M Adang
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2011-02-14       Impact factor: 3.046

7.  Colonoscopy results of a French regional FOBT-based colorectal cancer screening program with high compliance.

Authors:  S Manfredi; C Piette; G Durand; G Plihon; G Mallard; J-F Bretagne
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2008-01-09       Impact factor: 10.093

8.  Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Amy B Knudsen; Janneke Wilschut; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of two strategies for mass screening for colorectal cancer in France.

Authors:  Célia Berchi; Véronique Bouvier; Jean-Marie Réaud; Guy Launoy
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 3.046

10.  Time to incorporate time in cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Gijs van de Wetering; Willem H Woertman; Eddy M Adang
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2012-06
View more
  4 in total

1.  The impact of waiting for intervention on costs and effectiveness: the case of transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Aida Ribera; John Slof; Ignacio Ferreira-González; Vicente Serra; Bruno García-Del Blanco; Purificació Cascant; Rut Andrea; Carlos Falces; Enrique Gutiérrez; Raquel Del Valle-Fernández; César Morís-de laTassa; Pedro Mota; Juan Francisco Oteo; Pilar Tornos; David García-Dorado
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2017-11-23

2.  Patients without colonoscopic follow-up after abnormal fecal immunochemical tests are often unaware of the abnormal result and report several barriers to colonoscopy.

Authors:  Vivy T Cusumano; Edgar Corona; Diana Partida; Liu Yang; Christine Yu; Folasade P May
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-04-19       Impact factor: 3.067

3.  Simulation modeling validity and utility in colorectal cancer screening delivery: A systematic review.

Authors:  Heather Smith; Peyman Varshoei; Robin Boushey; Craig Kuziemsky
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Implementing a multilevel intervention to accelerate colorectal cancer screening and follow-up in federally qualified health centers using a stepped wedge design: a study protocol.

Authors:  Karen Kim; Blasé Polite; Donald Hedeker; David Liebovitz; Fornessa Randal; Manasi Jayaprakash; Michael Quinn; Sang Mee Lee; Helen Lam
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2020-10-29       Impact factor: 7.327

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.