Literature DB >> 29909873

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Navigation Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening to Reduce Social Health Inequalities: A French Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Rémy De Mil1, Elodie Guillaume2, Lydia Guittet3, Olivier Dejardin3, Véronique Bouvier3, Carole Pornet4, Véronique Christophe5, Annick Notari6, Hélène Delattre-Massy7, Chantal De Seze8, Jérôme Peng9, Guy Launoy3, Célia Berchi2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient navigation programs to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence have become widespread in recent years, especially among deprived populations.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the first patient navigation program in France.
METHODS: A total of 16,250 participants were randomized to either the usual screening group (n = 8145) or the navigation group (n = 8105). Navigation consisted of personalized support provided by social workers. A cost-effectiveness analysis of navigation versus usual screening was conducted from the payer perspective in the Picardy region of northern France. We considered nonmedical direct costs in the analysis.
RESULTS: Navigation was associated with a significant increase of 3.3% (24.4% vs. 21.1%; P = 0.003) in participation. The increase in participation was higher among affluent participants (+4.1%; P = 0.01) than among deprived ones (+2.6%; P = 0.07). The cost per additional individual screened by navigation compared with usual screening (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) was €1212 globally and €1527 among deprived participants. Results were sensitive to navigator wages and to the intervention effectiveness whose variations had the greatest impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient navigation aiming at increasing CRC screening participation is more efficient among affluent individuals. Nevertheless, when the intervention is implemented for the entire population, social inequalities in CRC screening adherence increase. To reduce social inequalities, patient navigation should therefore be restricted to deprived populations, despite not being the most cost-effective strategy, and accepted to bear a higher extra cost per additional individual screened.
Copyright © 2018 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  colorectal cancer screening; cost-effectiveness analysis; patient navigation; social inequalities

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29909873     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  5 in total

1.  Implementation and Uptake of Rural Lung Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Tri Le; Stacie Miller; Emily Berry; Sarah Zamarripa; Aurelio Rodriguez; Benjamin Barkley; Asha Kandathil; Cecelia Brewington; Keith E Argenbright; David E Gerber
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 5.532

2.  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

3.  Nationwide cohort study of the impact of education, income and social isolation on survival after acute colorectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  T H Degett; J Christensen; L A Thomsen; L H Iversen; I Gögenur; S O Dalton
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2019-11-04

4.  Effect of Text Messaging on Bowel Preparation and Appointment Attendance for Outpatient Colonoscopy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Nadim Mahmud; David A Asch; Jessica Sung; Catherine Reitz; Mary S Coniglio; Caitlin McDonald; Donna Bernard; Shivan J Mehta
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-01-04

5.  Evaluation of a mobile mammography unit: concepts and randomized cluster trial protocol of a population health intervention research to reduce breast cancer screening inequalities.

Authors:  Elodie Guillaume; Quentin Rollet; Ludivine Launay; Séverine Beuriot; Olivier Dejardin; Annick Notari; Elodie Crevel; Ahmed Benhammouda; Laurent Verzaux; Marie-Christine Quertier; Guy Launoy
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 2.728

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.