Amy Y Zhang1, Alex Z Fu2. 1. Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. 2. Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a behavioral intervention for urinary incontinence of prostate cancer patients. Study subjects were either participating in or eligible but declined (i.e., nonparticipating) the active intervention study. METHODS: The intervention-participating subjects were randomized into three groups, including two intervention groups (support and telephone groups) and a usual care reference group. Intervention-nonparticipating subjects were concurrently enrolled. Intervention effectiveness was assessed on the EQ-5D measure. The costs included direct healthcare cost from medical billing data, patient out-of-pocket expense, caregiver expense, patient loss-of-work cost, and intervention cost. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from societal, provider, and patient perspectives. RESULTS:Two hundred and sixty-seven intervention-participating and 69 intervention-nonparticipating post-cancer treatment patients were included. The support and telephone groups, but not the usual care group, had significantly higher EQ-5D index scores (0.054, p = 0.033, and 0.057, p = 0.026, respectively) than the intervention-nonparticipating group at month 6. Within 6 months, intervention cost per subject was $252 and $484, respectively, for providers, and $564 and $203, respectively, for the support and phone group subjects. The final ICERs were $16,759 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $12,561/QALY for support and telephone groups, compared with those of the intervention-nonparticipating group. These ICERs are much smaller than $50,000/QALY, the consensus threshold to determine cost-effectiveness for society. CONCLUSIONS: The study interventions are cost-effective in consideration of eligible patients who declined the interventions. The interventions can provide meaningful outcome improvement on urinary continence at a low cost. This evidence provides critical information for future health policy decision-making of healthcare providers and payers.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a behavioral intervention for urinary incontinence of prostate cancerpatients. Study subjects were either participating in or eligible but declined (i.e., nonparticipating) the active intervention study. METHODS: The intervention-participating subjects were randomized into three groups, including two intervention groups (support and telephone groups) and a usual care reference group. Intervention-nonparticipating subjects were concurrently enrolled. Intervention effectiveness was assessed on the EQ-5D measure. The costs included direct healthcare cost from medical billing data, patient out-of-pocket expense, caregiver expense, patient loss-of-work cost, and intervention cost. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from societal, provider, and patient perspectives. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-seven intervention-participating and 69 intervention-nonparticipating post-cancer treatment patients were included. The support and telephone groups, but not the usual care group, had significantly higher EQ-5D index scores (0.054, p = 0.033, and 0.057, p = 0.026, respectively) than the intervention-nonparticipating group at month 6. Within 6 months, intervention cost per subject was $252 and $484, respectively, for providers, and $564 and $203, respectively, for the support and phone group subjects. The final ICERs were $16,759 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $12,561/QALY for support and telephone groups, compared with those of the intervention-nonparticipating group. These ICERs are much smaller than $50,000/QALY, the consensus threshold to determine cost-effectiveness for society. CONCLUSIONS: The study interventions are cost-effective in consideration of eligible patients who declined the interventions. The interventions can provide meaningful outcome improvement on urinary continence at a low cost. This evidence provides critical information for future health policy decision-making of healthcare providers and payers.
Authors: David F Penson; Dale McLerran; Ziding Feng; Lin Li; Peter C Albertsen; Frank D Gilliland; Ann Hamilton; Richard M Hoffman; Robert A Stephenson; Arnold L Potosky; Janet L Stanford Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Teh-Wei Hu; Todd H Wagner; Judith D Bentkover; Kristi LeBlanc; Amy Piancentini; Walter F Stewart; Ron Corey; Steve Z Zhou; Timothy L Hunt Journal: Urology Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Andrew Gallagher; Violetta Shersher; Duncan Mortimer; Helen Truby; Terry Haines Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2022-09-27 Impact factor: 3.686
Authors: Leeanne Nicklas; Mairi Albiston; Martin Dunbar; Alan Gillies; Jennifer Hislop; Helen Moffat; Judy Thomson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Amy Y Zhang; Alex Z Fu; Shirley Moore; Hui Zhu; Gerald Strauss; Denise Kresevic; Eric Klein; Lee Ponsky; Donald R Bodner Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 4.442