Literature DB >> 25998922

An economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening in primary care practice.

Richard T Meenan1, Melissa L Anderson2, Jessica Chubak2, Sally W Vernon3, Sharon Fuller2, Ching-Yun Wang4, Beverly B Green2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Recent colorectal cancer screening studies focus on optimizing adherence. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of interventions using electronic health records (EHRs); automated mailings; and stepped support increases to improve 2-year colorectal cancer screening adherence.
METHODS: Analyses were based on a parallel-design, randomized trial in which three stepped interventions (EHR-linked mailings ["automated"]; automated plus telephone assistance ["assisted"]; or automated and assisted plus nurse navigation to testing completion or refusal [navigated"]) were compared to usual care. Data were from August 2008 to November 2011, with analyses performed during 2012-2013. Implementation resources were micro-costed; research and registry development costs were excluded. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were based on number of participants current for screening per guidelines over 2 years. Bootstrapping examined robustness of results.
RESULTS: Intervention delivery cost per participant current for screening ranged from $21 (automated) to $27 (navigated). Inclusion of induced testing costs (e.g., screening colonoscopy) lowered expenditures for automated (ICER=-$159) and assisted (ICER=-$36) relative to usual care over 2 years. Savings arose from increased fecal occult blood testing, substituting for more expensive colonoscopies in usual care. Results were broadly consistent across demographic subgroups. More intensive interventions were consistently likely to be cost effective relative to less intensive interventions, with willingness to pay values of $600-$1,200 for an additional person current for screening yielding ≥80% probability of cost effectiveness.
CONCLUSIONS: Two-year cost effectiveness of a stepped approach to colorectal cancer screening promotion based on EHR data is indicated, but longer-term cost effectiveness requires further study.
Copyright © 2015 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25998922      PMCID: PMC4441758          DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.12.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Prev Med        ISSN: 0749-3797            Impact factor:   5.043


  24 in total

1.  Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Hoch; Andrew H Briggs; Andrew R Willan
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 3.  Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Evelyn P Whitlock; Jennifer S Lin; Elizabeth Liles; Tracy L Beil; Rongwei Fu
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Costs and cost effectiveness of a health care provider-directed intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening among Veterans.

Authors:  Michael S Wolf; Karen A Fitzner; Eowyn F Powell; Kathryn R McCaffrey; A Simon Pickard; June M McKoy; Julia Lindenberg; Glen T Schumock; Kenneth R Carson; M Rosario Ferreira; Nancy C Dolan; Charles L Bennett
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Cost-effectiveness of a standard intervention versus a navigated intervention on colorectal cancer screening use in primary care.

Authors:  David R Lairson; Melissa Dicarlo; Ashish A Deshmuk; Heather B Fagan; Randa Sifri; Nora Katurakes; James Cocroft; Jocelyn Sendecki; Heidi Swan; Sally W Vernon; Ronald E Myers
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-01-16       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Microcosting quantity data collection methods.

Authors:  Kevin D Frick
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Cost-effectiveness of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening use.

Authors:  David R Lairson; Melissa DiCarlo; Ronald E Myers; Thomas Wolf; James Cocroft; Randa Sifri; Michael Rosenthal; Sally W Vernon; Richard Wender
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Costs and cost effectiveness of a health care provider-directed intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Veena Shankaran; Thanh Ha Luu; Narissa Nonzee; Elizabeth Richey; June M McKoy; Joshua Graff Zivin; Alfred Ashford; Rafael Lantigua; Harold Frucht; Marc Scoppettone; Charles L Bennett; Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-10-13       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  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

10.  Using the net benefit regression framework to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of external loop recorders versus Holter monitoring for ambulatory monitoring of "community acquired" syncope.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Hoch; Marie Antoinette Rockx; Andrew D Krahn
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-06-06       Impact factor: 2.655

View more
  14 in total

1.  Impact of continued mailed fecal tests in the patient-centered medical home: Year 3 of the Systems of Support to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-Up randomized trial.

Authors:  Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Sharon Fuller; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  A centralized mailed program with stepped increases of support increases time in compliance with colorectal cancer screening guidelines over 5 years: A randomized trial.

Authors:  Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Andrea J Cook; Jessica Chubak; Sharon Fuller; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Cost-effectiveness of a patient navigation intervention to increase colonoscopy screening among low-income adults in New Hampshire.

Authors:  Ketra Rice; Krishna Sharma; Chunyu Li; Lynn Butterly; Joanne Gersten; Amy DeGroff
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-12-12       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Patient-Refined Messaging for a Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Findings from the PROMPT Study.

Authors:  Gloria D Coronado; Jamie H Thompson; Amanda F Petrik; Denis B Nyongesa; Michael C Leo; Melissa Castillo; Brittany Younger; Anne Escaron; Alex Chen
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2019 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.657

5.  Developing Patient-Refined Messaging for a Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in a Latino-Based Community Health Center.

Authors:  Jamie H Thompson; Melinda M Davis; LeAnn Michaels; Jennifer S Rivelli; Melissa L Castillo; Brittany M Younger; Marta Castro; Sacha L Reich; Gloria D Coronado
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2019 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.657

6.  Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates Increased after Exposure to the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH).

Authors:  Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Laura Mae Baldwin; Leah Tuzzio; Sheryl Catz; Alison Cole; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.657

7.  Economics of Multicomponent Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Review.

Authors:  Giridhar Mohan; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Donatus U Ekwueme; Susan A Sabatino; Devon L Okasako-Schmucker; Yinan Peng; Shawna L Mercer; Anilkrishna B Thota
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2019-08-30       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 8.  A cost-effectiveness analysis of a colorectal cancer screening program in safety net clinics.

Authors:  Richard T Meenan; Gloria D Coronado; Amanda Petrik; Beverly B Green
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  Comparative effectiveness of mailed reminders with and without fecal immunochemical tests for Medicaid beneficiaries at a large county health department: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Alison T Brenner; Jewels Rhode; Jeff Y Yang; Dana Baker; Rebecca Drechsel; Marcus Plescia; Daniel S Reuland; Tom Wroth; Stephanie B Wheeler
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-07-13       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  A Centralized Program with Stepped Support Increases Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening Over 9 Years: a Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Andrea J Cook; Jessica Chubak; Sharon Fuller; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 6.473

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.