Search

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]

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: Exercise may reduce morbidity, increase survival, and improve quality of life (QoL) in prostate cancer patients. However, effective ways to encourage exercise outside carefully controlled clinical trials remain uncertain. We evaluated the effectiveness of peer-led self-management for increasing exercise participation in men with localized prostate cancer.Methods: Four hundred and sixty-three prostate cancer patients from Queensland, Australia were randomized to a monthly telephone-based group peer support for 6 months supported by self-management materials and exercise equipment (INT, n = 232) or usual care (UC, n = 231). Participants were assessed at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Primary outcomes were compliance with exercise guidelines; secondary outcomes were psychological distress and QoL.Results: Patients in INT engaged in more resistance exercise than UC at 3 months (19.4 [95% CI 6.52 to 32.28] min/wk, P = .003) and 6 months (14.6 [95% CI 1.69 to 27.58] min/wk, P = .027); more men achieved sufficient physical activity levels at 3 months (χ2  = 8.89, P = 0.003). There was no difference between groups for aerobic-based activity at any time point nor for resistance exercise time at 12-month follow-up. INT had higher QoL Relationships scores at 3 months (.03 [95% CI .00 to .06], P = .038) compared with UC. Limitation included self-reported assessment of exercise.Conclusions: Peer-led intervention was effective in increasing patients' resistance exercise participation in the short-to-medium term and in the number of men achieving sufficient activity levels in the short-term; however, this was not accompanied by overall improvements in QoL or psychological distress. Methods to increase effectiveness and maintain long-term adherence require further investigation. [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]