Cost-effectiveness of a behavioral intervention for persistent urinary incontinence in prostate cancer patients.

<bold>Objective: </bold>The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a behavioral intervention for urinary incontinence of prostate cancer patients. Study subjects were either participating in or eligible but declined (i.e., nonparticipating) the active intervention study.<bold>Methods: </bold>The intervention-participating subjects were randomized into three groups, including two intervention groups (support and telephone groups) and a usual care reference group. Intervention-nonparticipating subjects were concurrently enrolled. Intervention effectiveness was assessed on the EQ-5D measure. The costs included direct healthcare cost from medical billing data, patient out-of-pocket expense, caregiver expense, patient loss-of-work cost, and intervention cost. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from societal, provider, and patient perspectives.<bold>Results: </bold>Two hundred and sixty-seven intervention-participating and 69 intervention-nonparticipating post-cancer treatment patients were included. The support and telephone groups, but not the usual care group, had significantly higher EQ-5D index scores (0.054, p = 0.033, and 0.057, p = 0.026, respectively) than the intervention-nonparticipating group at month 6. Within 6 months, intervention cost per subject was $252 and $484, respectively, for providers, and $564 and $203, respectively, for the support and phone group subjects. The final ICERs were $16,759 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $12,561/QALY for support and telephone groups, compared with those of the intervention-nonparticipating group. These ICERs are much smaller than $50,000/QALY, the consensus threshold to determine cost-effectiveness for society.<bold>Conclusions: </bold>The study interventions are cost-effective in consideration of eligible patients who declined the interventions. The interventions can provide meaningful outcome improvement on urinary continence at a low cost. This evidence provides critical information for future health policy decision-making of healthcare providers and payers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]