Literature DB >> 30857431

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted, Personalized Risk Information to Increase Appropriate Screening by First-Degree Relatives of People With Colorectal Cancer.

Penny Reeves1,2, Christopher Doran3, Mariko Carey1,2, Emilie Cameron1,2, Robert Sanson-Fisher1,2, Finlay Macrae4,5, David Hill4,6.   

Abstract

Background. Economic evaluations are less commonly applied to implementation interventions compared to clinical interventions. The efficacy of an implementation strategy to improve adherence to screening guidelines among first-degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer was recently evaluated in a randomized-controlled trial. Using these trial data, we examined the costs and cost-effectiveness of the intervention from societal and health care funder perspectives. Method. In this prospective, trial-based evaluation, mean costs, and outcomes were calculated. The primary outcome of the trial was the proportion of participants who had screening tests in the year following the intervention commensurate with their risk category. Quality-adjusted life years were included as secondary outcomes. Intervention costs were determined from trial records. Standard Australian unit costs for 2016/2017 were applied. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the net benefit framework. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to calculate uncertainty intervals (UIs) around the costs and the incremental net monetary benefit statistic. Results. Compared with usual care, mean health sector costs were $17 (95% UI [$14, $24]) higher for those receiving the intervention. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the primary trial outcome was calculated to be $258 (95% UI [$184, $441]) per additional person appropriately screened. The significant difference in adherence to screening guidelines between the usual care and intervention groups did not translate into a mean quality-adjusted life year difference. Discussion. Providing information on both the costs and outcomes of implementation interventions is important to inform public health care investment decisions. Challenges in the application of cost-utility analysis hampered the interpretation of results and potentially underestimated the value of the intervention. Further research in the form of a modeled extrapolation of the intermediate increased adherence effect and distributional cost-effectiveness to include equity requirements is warranted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  colorectal cancer; cost; cost-effectiveness; familial risk; screening

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30857431     DOI: 10.1177/1090198119835294

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Educ Behav        ISSN: 1090-1981


  2 in total

1.  Quantifying Downstream Healthcare Utilization in Studies of Genomic Testing.

Authors:  Zoë P Mackay; Dmitry Dukhovny; Kathryn A Phillips; Alan H Beggs; Robert C Green; Richard B Parad; Kurt D Christensen
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2020-03-20       Impact factor: 5.725

2.  Risk of colorectal cancer in patients with diabetes mellitus: A Swedish nationwide cohort study.

Authors:  Uzair Ali Khan; Mahdi Fallah; Kristina Sundquist; Jan Sundquist; Hermann Brenner; Elham Kharazmi
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 11.069

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.