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: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of a psychologist-led, individualised cognitive behavioural intervention (PI) to a nurse-led, minimal contact self-management condition for highly distressed cancer patients and carers.Methods: This was an economic evaluation conducted alongside a randomised trial of highly distressed adult cancer patients and carers calling cancer helplines. Services used by participants were measured using a resource use questionnaire, and quality-adjusted life years were measured using the assessment of quality of life - eight-dimension - instrument collected through a computer-assisted telephone interview. The base case analysis stratified participants based on the baseline score on the Brief Symptom Inventory. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio confidence intervals were calculated with a nonparametric bootstrap to reflect sampling uncertainty. The results were subjected to sensitivity analysis by varying unit costs for resource use and the method for handling missing data.Results: No significant differences were found in overall total costs or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between intervention groups. Bootstrapped data suggest the PI had a higher probability of lower cost and greater QALYs for both carers and patients with high distress at baseline. For patients with low levels of distress at baseline, the PI had a higher probability of greater QALYs but at additional cost. Sensitivity analysis showed the results were robust.Conclusions: The PI may be cost-effective compared with the nurse-led, minimal contact self-management condition for highly distressed cancer patients and carers. More intensive psychological intervention for patients with greater levels of distress appears warranted. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]