Cost-Effectiveness of a Standard Intervention Versus a Navigated Intervention on Colorectal Cancer Screening Use in Primary Care

被引:36
作者
Lairson, David R. [1 ]
DiCarlo, Melissa [2 ]
Deshmuk, Ashish A. [1 ]
Fagan, Heather B. [3 ]
Sifri, Randa [4 ]
Katurakes, Nora [5 ]
Cocroft, James [2 ]
Sendecki, Jocelyn [6 ]
Swan, Heidi [2 ]
Vernon, Sally W. [7 ]
Myers, Ronald E. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas Hlth Sci Ctr Houston, Sch Publ Hlth, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Div Populat Sci, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[3] Christiana Care Hlth Syst, Wilmington, DE USA
[4] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[5] Christiana Care Hlth Syst, Wilmington, DE USA
[6] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Div Biostat, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[7] Univ Texas Houston, Sch Publ Hlth, Ctr Hlth Promot & Prevent Res, Div Hlth Promot & Behav Sci, Houston, TX USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
colorectal neoplasms; early detection of cancer; costs and cost analysis; patient navigation; intervention studies; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; TAILORED INTERVENTIONS; DIRECTED INTERVENTION; PATIENT;
D O I
10.1002/cncr.28535
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 [肿瘤学];
摘要
BACKGROUNDColorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective but underused. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a mailed standard intervention (SI) and tailored navigation interventions (TNIs) to increase CRC screening use in the context of a randomized trial among primary care patients. METHODSParticipants (n=945) were randomized either to a usual care control group (n=317), to an SI group (n=316), or to a TNI group (n=312). The SI group was sent both colonoscopy instructions and stool blood tests irrespective of baseline preference. TNI group participants were sent instructions for scheduling a colonoscopy, a stool blood test, or both based on their test preference, as determined at baseline; then, they received a navigation telephone call. Activity cost estimation was used to determine the cost of each intervention and to compute incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Statistical uncertainty within the base case was assessed with 95% confidence intervals derived from net benefit regression analysis. The effects of uncertain parameters, such as the cost of planning, training, and involvement of those receiving investigator salaries, were assessed with sensitivity analyses. RESULTSProgram costs of the SI were $167 per participant. The average cost of the TNI was $289 per participant. CONCLUSIONSThe TNI was more effective than the SI but substantially increased the cost per additional individual screened. Decision-makers need to consider cost structure, level of planning, and training required to implement these 2 intervention strategies and their willingness to pay for additional individuals screened to determine whether a tailored navigation would be justified and feasible. Cancer 2014;120:1042-1049. (c) 2013 American Cancer Society. Mailed stool blood testing significantly boosts colorectal cancer screening use, and the intervention is well within the cost range of other practice-based studies of colorectal cancer screening promotion. However, the tailored navigation intervention is more effective than the standard intervention, and the gains come at substantially higher costs.
引用
收藏
页码:1042 / 1049
页数:8
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]
A patient education program is cost-effective for preventing failure of endoscopic procedures in a gastroenterology department [J].
Abuksis, G ;
Mor, M ;
Segal, N ;
Shemesh, I ;
Morad, I ;
Plaut, S ;
Weiss, E ;
Sulkes, J ;
Fraser, G ;
Niv, Y .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2001, 96 (06) :1786-1790
[2]
Examining the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening promotion [J].
Andersen, MR ;
Urban, N ;
Ramsey, S ;
Briss, PA .
CANCER, 2004, 101 (05) :1229-1238
[3]
Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of mammography promotion by volunteers in rural communities [J].
Andersen, MR ;
Hager, M ;
Su, C ;
Urban, N .
HEALTH EDUCATION & BEHAVIOR, 2002, 29 (06) :755-770
[4]
Baier M, 2000, CANCER EPIDEM BIOMAR, V9, P229
[5]
Screening for colorectal cancer: Recommendation and rationale [J].
Berg, AO ;
Allan, JD ;
Frame, PS ;
Homer, CJ ;
Johnson, MS ;
Klein, JD ;
Lieu, TA ;
Mulrow, CD ;
Orleans, CT ;
Peipert, JF ;
Pender, NJ ;
Siu, AL ;
Teutsch, SM ;
Westhoff, C ;
Woolf, SH .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2002, 137 (02) :129-131
[6]
Briggs A., 2001, Economic evaluation in health care, P172
[7]
Barriers to colorectal cancer screening: An educational diagnosis [J].
Brouse, CH ;
Basch, CE ;
Wolf, RL ;
Shmukler, C .
JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION, 2004, 19 (03) :170-173
[8]
Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, COL CANC SCREEN RAT
[9]
A program to enhance completion of screening colonoscopy among urban minorities [J].
Chew, Lea Ann ;
Santos, Stephanie ;
Jandorf, Lina ;
Christie, Jennifer ;
Castillo, Anabella ;
Winke, Gary ;
Itzkowitz, Steven .
CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2008, 6 (04) :443-450
[10]
Cost-effectiveness of an intervention to increase cancer screening in primary care settings [J].
Chirikos, TN ;
Christman, LK ;
Hunter, S ;
Roetzheim, RG .
PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2004, 39 (02) :230-238