IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v17y2019i5d10.1007_s40258-019-00483-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness of a Psycho-Educational Intervention Targeting Fear of Cancer Recurrence in People Treated for Early-Stage Melanoma

Author

Listed:
  • Mbathio Dieng

    (The University of Sydney)

  • Nikita Khanna

    (The University of Sydney)

  • Nadine A. Kasparian

    (The University of New South Wales)

  • Daniel S. J. Costa

    (The University of Sydney)

  • Phyllis N. Butow

    (The University of Sydney)

  • Scott W. Menzies

    (The University of Sydney)

  • Graham J. Mann

    (The University of Sydney)

  • Anne E Cust

    (The University of Sydney)

  • Rachael L. Morton

    (The University of Sydney)

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a newly developed psycho-educational intervention to reduce fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) in early-stage melanoma patients. Methods A within-trial cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis was conducted from the Australian health system perspective using data from linked Medicare records. Outcomes included FCR, measured with the severity subscale of the FCR Inventory; quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) measured using the preference-based instrument, Assessment of Quality of Life-8 Dimensions (AQoL-8D) and 12-month survival. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for two economic outcomes: (1) cost per additional case of ‘high’ FCR avoided and (2) cost per QALY gained. Means and 95% CIs around the ICER were generated from non-parametric bootstrapping with 1000 replications. Results A total of 151 trial participants were included in the economic evaluation. The mean cost of the psycho-educational intervention was AU$1614 per participant, including intervention development costs. The ICER per case of high FCR avoided was AU$12,903. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve demonstrated a 78% probability of the intervention being cost effective relative to the control at a threshold of AU$50,000 per extra person avoiding FCR. The ICER per QALY gained was AU$116,126 and the probability of the intervention being cost effective for this outcome was 36% at a willingness to pay of AU$50,000 per QALY. Conclusion The psycho-educational intervention reduced FCR at 12 months for people at high risk of developing another melanoma and may represent good value for money. For the QALY outcome, the psycho-educational intervention is unlikely to be cost effective at standard government willingness-to-pay levels. The trial was prospectively registered in the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (CTRN12613000304730).

Suggested Citation

  • Mbathio Dieng & Nikita Khanna & Nadine A. Kasparian & Daniel S. J. Costa & Phyllis N. Butow & Scott W. Menzies & Graham J. Mann & Anne E Cust & Rachael L. Morton, 2019. "Cost-Effectiveness of a Psycho-Educational Intervention Targeting Fear of Cancer Recurrence in People Treated for Early-Stage Melanoma," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 669-681, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:17:y:2019:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00483-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-019-00483-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-019-00483-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-019-00483-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    2. Elisabeth Fenwick & Bernie J. O'Brien & Andrew Briggs, 2004. "Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves – facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 405-415, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    3. Sanjib Saha & Birgitta Grahn & Ulf-G. Gerdtham & Kjerstin Stigmar & Sara Holmberg & Johan Jarl, 2019. "Structured physiotherapy including a work place intervention for patients with neck and/or back pain in primary care: an economic evaluation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 317-327, March.
    4. Francisco Jódar-Sánchez & Amaia Malet-Larrea & José Martín & Leticia García-Mochón & M. López del Amo & Fernando Martínez-Martínez & Miguel Gastelurrutia-Garralda & Victoria García-Cárdenas & Daniel S, 2015. "Cost-Utility Analysis of a Medication Review with Follow-Up Service for Older Adults with Polypharmacy in Community Pharmacies in Spain: The conSIGUE Program," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 599-610, June.
    5. Mohamed El Alili & Johanna M. Dongen & Judith A. F. Huirne & Maurits W. Tulder & Judith E. Bosmans, 2017. "Reporting and Analysis of Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations in Obstetrics and Gynaecology," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(10), pages 1007-1033, October.
    6. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    7. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    8. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    9. Lakdawalla, Darius N. & Seabury, Seth A., 2012. "The welfare effects of medical malpractice liability," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 356-369.
    10. Jesse Elliott & Sasha Katwyk & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & Becky Skidmore & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2019. "Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1261-1276, October.
    11. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Dan Greenberg & Josephine Mauskopf & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & David Moher & Elizabeth Loder & Chris Carswell, 2015. "Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 535-536, May.
    12. Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    13. Kathryn Schnippel & Naomi Lince-Deroche & Theo van den Handel & Seithati Molefi & Suann Bruce & Cynthia Firnhaber, 2015. "Cost Evaluation of Reproductive and Primary Health Care Mobile Service Delivery for Women in Two Rural Districts in South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-13, March.
    14. Rachel Elliott & Koen Putman & James Davies & Lieven Annemans, 2014. "A Review of the Methodological Challenges in Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacist Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1185-1199, December.
    15. Abualbishr Alshreef & Michelle Jenks & William Green & Simon Dixon, 2016. "Review of Economic Submissions to NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 623-634, December.
    16. Yue Yin & Yusi Tu & Mingye Zhao & Wenxi Tang, 2022. "Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Interventions among Chinese Adults with Prediabetes: A Protocol for Network Meta-Analysis and CHIME-Modeled Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-12, January.
    17. Huajie Jin & Paul Tappenden & Stewart Robinson & Evanthia Achilla & David Aceituno & Sarah Byford, 2020. "Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    18. S. Rajsic & H. Gothe & H. H. Borba & G. Sroczynski & J. Vujicic & T. Toell & Uwe Siebert, 2019. "Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 107-134, February.
    19. B Ekman & H Nero & L S Lohmander & L E Dahlberg, 2020. "Costing analysis of a digital first-line treatment platform for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis in Sweden," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-12, August.
    20. Stuart Wright & Cheryl Jones & Katherine Payne & Nimarta Dharni & Fiona Ulph, 2015. "The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 615-626, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:17:y:2019:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00483-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.