The Cost-Effectiveness of a School-based Intervention for Bullying Prevention: an Australian case study

Introduction. Individuals from older populations tend to have more than 1 health condition (multimorbidity). Current approaches to produce economic evidence for clinical guidelines using decision-analytic models typically use a single-disease approach, which may not appropriately reflect the competing risks within a population with multimorbidity. This study aims to demonstrate a proof-of-concept method of modeling multiple conditions in a single decision-analytic model to estimate the impact of multimorbidity on the cost-effectiveness of interventions. Methods. Multiple conditions were modeled within a single decision-analytic model by linking multiple single-disease models. Individual discrete event simulation models were developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of preventative interventions for a case study assuming a UK National Health Service perspective. The case study used 3 diseases (heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and osteoporosis) that were combined within a single linked model. The linked model, with and without correlations between diseases incorporated, simulated the general population aged 45 years and older to compare results in terms of lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results. The estimated incremental costs and QALYs for health care interventions differed when 3 diseases were modeled simultaneously (£840; 0.234 QALYs) compared with aggregated results from 3 single-disease models (£408; 0.280QALYs). With correlations between diseases additionally incorporated, both absolute and incremental costs and QALY estimates changed in different directions, suggesting that the inclusion of correlations can alter model results. Discussion. Linking multiple single-disease models provides a methodological option for decision analysts who undertake research on populations with multimorbidity. It also has potential for wider applications in informing decisions on commissioning of health care services and long-term priority setting across diseases and health care programs through providing potentially more accurate estimations of the relative cost-effectiveness of interventions.

Download Full-text

An Economic Evaluation of a Comprehensive School-Based Caries Prevention Program

JDR Clinical & Translational Research ◽

10.1177/2380084419837587 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 4 (4) ◽

pp. 378-387 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

S.S. Huang ◽

R.R. Ruff ◽

R. Niederman

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Incremental Cost ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Prevention Programs ◽

Caries Prevention ◽

Health Impacts ◽

Economic Evaluations ◽

Posterior Teeth ◽

School Based ◽

The Cost

Introduction: Current economic evaluations of school-based caries prevention programs (SCPPs) do not compare multiple types of SCPPs against each other and do not consider teeth beyond permanent first molars. Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive SCPP relative to an SCPP focused on delivering sealants for permanent first molars only and to a default of no SCPP. Based on a societal perspective, a simulation model was used that compared the health and cost impacts on 1) permanent first molars only and 2) all posterior teeth. Methods: To calibrate the model, we used data from CariedAway, a comprehensive SCPP that used glass ionomer to prevent and arrest active decay among children. We then evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness of implementing 3 alternate school-based approaches (comprehensive, sealant only, and no program) on only first molars and all posterior teeth. Probabilistic, 1-, and 2-way sensitivity analyses are included for robustness. Cost-effectiveness is assessed with a threshold of $54,639 per averted disability-adjusted life year (DALY). Results: We first compared the 3 programs under the assumption of treating only first molars. This assessment indicated that CariedAway was less cost-effective than school-based sealant programs (SSPs): the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CariedAway versus SSPs was $283,455 per averted DALY. However, when the model was extended to include CariedAway’s treatment of all posterior teeth, CariedAway was not only cost-effective but also cost-saving relative to SSPs (ICER, –$943,460.88 per averted DALY; net cost, –$261.45) and no SCPP (ICER, –$400,645.52 per averted DALY; net cost, –$239.77). Conclusions: This study finds that economic evaluations assessing only cost and health impacts on permanent first molars may underestimate the cost-effectiveness of comprehensive SCPPs 1) preventing and arresting decay and 2) treating all teeth. Hence, there is an urgent need for economic evaluations of SCPPs to assess cost and health impacts across teeth beyond only permanent first molars. Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study can be used by policy makers to understand how to evaluate economic evaluations of school-based caries prevention programs and what factors to consider when deciding on what types of programs to implement.

Download Full-text