Search

Objective: Alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the efficacy of the ConquerFear intervention for reducing fear of cancer recurrence in cancer survivors, the cost-effectiveness of this novel intervention was assessed, primarily from the health sector perspective, with broader societal productivity impacts assessed.Methods: Health care resource use was collected by a tailored cost diary. Incremental costs were calculated as the difference in total costs between the intervention and control groups. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated by cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, comparing incremental costs with incremental outcomes measured. Nonparametric bootstrap analysis was performed to evaluate uncertainty in costs and outcomes.Results: Cancer survivors were randomized into ConquerFear (n = 121), or an active control group receiving relaxation training (n = 101). Participants received on average 3.69 sessions, incurring an average cost of $297 per person, with no group difference. The ITT analysis results indicated a mean ICER $34 300 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) with average incremental cost $488 and health gain of 0.0142 QALYs, from the health care sector perspective. Bootstrap analysis showed 30% of iterations were dominant and overall 53% ICERs were cost-effective as judged by the commonly used $50 000/QALY threshold.Conclusions: The ConquerFear intervention is associated with a modest cost and may provide good value for money, but further evidence is needed. Long-term cost-effectiveness needs further investigation to capture full benefits from the intervention beyond the trial follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Carers of people with cancer provide uncompensated care that is often physically, emotionally, and financially demanding, which results in neglect of their own health. This study's objective was to conduct an economic evaluation following a randomised control trial (RCT) involving a proactive telephone outcall intervention aimed at improving health outcomes among carers of cancer patients.Methods: The trial was a single-blind, multicentre, RCT conducted across four Australian health services, comprising three outcalls from trained Cancer Council 131120 (Cancer Council telephone and information support services) nurses compared with three phone call reminders of the availability of 131120 services (control group). Outcalls consisted of telephone contacts to the caregivers initiated by the Cancer Council nurses. The primary trial outcome was reduced carer burden. Health care resource use was measured using a resource use questionnaire (RUQ), and costs were presented in 2013 $(AUS). Quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) were also used as health outcomes. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, with bootstrapping used to quantify sampling variability. A $50 000 per QALY-gained willingness-to-pay threshold was used. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.Results: Results showed that the total mean QALYs-gained were higher (0.02 QALYs, P = 0.01) in the control group, and total mean costs were lower in the control group ($477, P < 0.001) over the trial duration. The intervention group was dominated by the control group. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses.Conclusions: Results suggest policy makers should not adopt this intervention into routine health care in its current form. Further research into the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of telephone-based interventions for carers is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]