Economic evaluation of a psychological intervention for high distress cancer patients and carers: costs and quality-adjusted life years

被引:17
作者
Chatterton, Mary Lou [1 ]
Chambers, Suzanne [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Occhipinti, Stefano [2 ]
Girgis, Afaf [5 ]
Dunn, Jeffrey [2 ,3 ,6 ,7 ]
Carter, Rob [1 ]
Shih, Sophy [1 ]
Mihalopoulos, Cathrine [1 ]
机构
[1] Deakin Univ, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[2] Griffith Univ, Griffith Hlth Inst, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[3] Canc Council Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[4] Prostate Canc Fdn Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[5] Univ New South Wales, South Western Sydney Clin Sch, Ingham Inst Appl Med Res, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[6] Griffith Univ, Sch Med, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[7] Univ Queensland, Sch Social Sci, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
基金
澳大利亚国家健康与医学研究理事会;
关键词
DEPRESSION; THERMOMETER; VALIDITY;
D O I
10.1002/pon.4020
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
ObjectiveThis 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. MethodsThis 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. ResultsNo 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. ConclusionsThe 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 (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:857 / 864
页数:8
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] Andrykowski MA, 2000, PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, V9, P69
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2014, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Survivorship
  • [3] Australia Government (Services Australia), MED IT REP
  • [4] Australian Government Department of Human Services, PHARM BEN SCH IT REP
  • [5] Australian Institute of Health & Welfare Australasian Association of Cancer Registries, 2012, CANC AUSTR OV
  • [6] Carter Rob, 2008, Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, V8, P593, DOI 10.1586/14737167.8.6.593
  • [7] Centre for Health Economics, AQOL 8D UT ALG
  • [8] Psychological distress and unmet supportive care needs in cancer patients and carers who contact cancer helplines
    Chambers, S. K.
    Girgis, A.
    Occhipinti, S.
    Hutchison, S.
    Turner, J.
    Morris, B.
    Dunn, J.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER CARE, 2012, 21 (02) : 213 - 223
  • [9] The validity of the distress thermometer in prostate cancer populations
    Chambers, Suzanne K.
    Zajdlewicz, Leah
    Youlden, Danny R.
    Holland, Jimmie C.
    Dunn, Jeff
    [J]. PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, 2014, 23 (02) : 195 - 203
  • [10] Couple distress after localised prostate cancer
    Chambers, Suzanne K.
    Schover, Leslie
    Nielsen, Lisa
    Halford, Kim
    Clutton, Samantha
    Gardiner, Robert A.
    Dunn, Jeff
    Occhipinti, Stefano
    [J]. SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER, 2013, 21 (11) : 2967 - 2976