PURPOSE: We characterize the costs and cost-effectiveness of a community health worker (CHW)-based intervention to promote screening mammography among US-based non-adherent Latinas. METHODS: The parent study was a randomized controlled trial for 536 Latinas aged 42-74 years old who had sought care within a safety net health center in Western Washington. Participants were block-randomized within clinic to the control arm (usual care) or intervention arm (CHW-led motivational interviewing intervention). We used the perspective of the organization implementing promotional activities to characterize costs and cost-effectiveness. Cost data were categorized as program set-up and maintenance (initial training, booster/annual training) program implementation (administrative activities, intervention delivery); and, overhead/miscellaneous expenses. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the incremental cost of screening for each additional woman screened between the intervention and control arms. RESULTS: The respective costs per participant for standard care and the intervention arm were $69.96 and $300.99. There were no study arm differences in 1-year QALYs were small among women who completed a 12-month follow-up survey (intervention= 0.8827, standard care = 0.8841). Most costs pertained to program implementation and administrative activities specifically. The incremental cost per additional woman screened was $2,595.32. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are within the ranges of costs and cost-effectiveness for other CHW programs to promote screening mammography among underserved populations. Our strong study design and focus on non-adherent women provides important strengths to this body of work, especially give implementation and dissemination science efforts regarding CHW-based health promotion for health disparity populations.
PURPOSE: We characterize the costs and cost-effectiveness of a community health worker (CHW)-based intervention to promote screening mammography among US-based non-adherent Latinas. METHODS: The parent study was a randomized controlled trial for 536 Latinas aged 42-74 years old who had sought care within a safety net health center in Western Washington. Participants were block-randomized within clinic to the control arm (usual care) or intervention arm (CHW-led motivational interviewing intervention). We used the perspective of the organization implementing promotional activities to characterize costs and cost-effectiveness. Cost data were categorized as program set-up and maintenance (initial training, booster/annual training) program implementation (administrative activities, intervention delivery); and, overhead/miscellaneous expenses. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the incremental cost of screening for each additional woman screened between the intervention and control arms. RESULTS: The respective costs per participant for standard care and the intervention arm were $69.96 and $300.99. There were no study arm differences in 1-year QALYs were small among women who completed a 12-month follow-up survey (intervention= 0.8827, standard care = 0.8841). Most costs pertained to program implementation and administrative activities specifically. The incremental cost per additional woman screened was $2,595.32. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are within the ranges of costs and cost-effectiveness for other CHW programs to promote screening mammography among underserved populations. Our strong study design and focus on non-adherent women provides important strengths to this body of work, especially give implementation and dissemination science efforts regarding CHW-based health promotion for health disparity populations.
Entities:
Keywords:
Latinas; community health workers; cost-effectiveness analysis; mammography disparities
Authors: Jacqueline Martinez; Marguerite Ro; Normandy William Villa; Wayne Powell; James R Knickman Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Curtis J Wray; Uma R Phatak; Emily K Robinson; Rebecca L Wiatek; Alyssa G Rieber; Anneliese Gonzalez; Tien C Ko; Lillian S Kao Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-02-24 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Paula M Lantz; Mahasin Mujahid; Kendra Schwartz; Nancy K Janz; Angela Fagerlin; Barbara Salem; Lihua Liu; Dennis Deapen; Steven J Katz Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2006-10-31 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Shirley A A Beresford; Dale McLerran; Ricardo Jimenez; Donald L Patrick; India Ornelas; Sonia Bishop; John R Scheel; Beti Thompson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Yamile Molina; Sarah D Hohl; Linda K Ko; Edgar A Rodriguez; Beti Thompson; Shirley A A Beresford Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 2.037