scholarly journals A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (37) ◽  
pp. 1-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Jane Morrell ◽  
Paul Sutcliffe ◽  
Andrew Booth ◽  
John Stevens ◽  
Alison Scope ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Postnatal Depression ◽  
Postnatal Care ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Considerable Uncertainty ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundPostnatal depression (PND) is a major depressive disorder in the year following childbirth, which impacts on women, their infants and their families. A range of interventions has been developed to prevent PND.ObjectivesTo (1) evaluate the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability and safety of antenatal and postnatal interventions for pregnant and postnatal women to prevent PND; (2) apply rigorous methods of systematic reviewing of quantitative and qualitative studies, evidence synthesis and decision-analytic modelling to evaluate the preventive impact on women, their infants and their families; and (3) estimate cost-effectiveness.Data sourcesWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and other databases (from inception to July 2013) in December 2012, and we were updated by electronic alerts until July 2013.Review methodsTwo reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts with consensus agreement. We undertook quality assessment. All universal, selective and indicated preventive interventions for pregnant women and women in the first 6 postnatal weeks were included. All outcomes were included, focusing on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), diagnostic instruments and infant outcomes. The quantitative evidence was synthesised using network meta-analyses (NMAs). A mathematical model was constructed to explore the cost-effectiveness of interventions contained within the NMA for EPDS values.ResultsFrom 3072 records identified, 122 papers (86 trials) were included in the quantitative review. From 2152 records, 56 papers (44 studies) were included in the qualitative review. The results were inconclusive. The most beneficial interventions appeared to be midwifery redesigned postnatal care [as shown by the mean 12-month EPDS score difference of –1.43 (95% credible interval –4.00 to 1.36)], person-centred approach (PCA)-based and cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT)-based intervention (universal), interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT)-based intervention and education on preparing for parenting (selective), promoting parent–infant interaction, peer support, IPT-based intervention and PCA-based and CBT-based intervention (indicated). Women valued seeing the same health worker, the involvement of partners and access to several visits from a midwife or health visitor trained in person-centred or cognitive–behavioural approaches. The most cost-effective interventions were estimated to be midwifery redesigned postnatal care (universal), PCA-based intervention (indicated) and IPT-based intervention in the sensitivity analysis (indicated), although there was considerable uncertainty. Expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) for efficacy data was in excess of £150M for each population. Given the EVPPI values, future trials assessing the relative efficacies of promising interventions appears to represent value for money.LimitationsIn the NMAs, some trials were omitted because they could not be connected to the main network of evidence or did not provide EPDS scores. This may have introduced reporting or selection bias. No adjustment was made for the lack of quality of some trials. Although we appraised a very large number of studies, much of the evidence was inconclusive.ConclusionsInterventions warrant replication within randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Several interventions appear to be cost-effective relative to usual care, but this is subject to considerable uncertainty.Future work recommendationsSeveral interventions appear to be cost-effective relative to usual care, but this is subject to considerable uncertainty. Future research conducting RCTs to establish which interventions are most clinically effective and cost-effective should be considered.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003273.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-effectiveness of an education and activation program for patients with acute and subacute shoulder complaints compared to usual care

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camiel De Bruijn ◽  
Marielle Goossens ◽  
Rob de Bie ◽  
Andre Ament ◽  
Jacques Geraets ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Bootstrap Analysis ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Cost Effect

Objectives: Shoulder complaints (SCs) constitute the second largest group of musculoskeletal disorders after low back pain. The economic burden in terms of costs of healthcare use and costs due to work absenteeism underlines the need for a cost-effectiveness analysis of the interventions involved. The education and activation program (EAP) is a newly developed early intervention to prevent the development of chronic SCs. A cost-effectiveness analysis should provide more information on the effect of an EAP on total costs related to SCs.Methods: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of the EAP in addition to usual care (EAP group) with that of usual care alone (UC group) in terms of preventing chronicity in patients with acute SCs. The aim of the cost-effectiveness analysis was to compare the observed difference in costs with the clinical effectiveness (i.e., patient-perceived recovery after 26 weeks), using bootstraps.Results: The comparison of total costs between treatment groups showed no significant (p = .077) difference after 26 weeks. The majority (82 percent) of the cost-effect pairs after bootstrap analysis were located in the northeast quadrant, suggesting more effect but at higher costs.Conclusions: In view of the clinical relevance of the clinical outcomes and the considerable costs needed to achieve this, it can be concluded that the EAP is currently not cost-effective.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for falls prevention in older people: a multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial (the REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention trial)

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (24) ◽  
pp. 1-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Cockayne ◽  
Sara Rodgers ◽  
Lorraine Green ◽  
Caroline Fairhurst ◽  
Joy Adamson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Falls Prevention ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundFalls are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to individuals and society. Evidence suggests that foot problems and inappropriate footwear may increase the risk of falling. Podiatric interventions could help reduce falls; however, there is limited evidence regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.ObjectivesTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for preventing falls in community-dwelling older people at risk of falling, relative to usual care.DesignA pragmatic, multicentred, cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and qualitative study.SettingNine NHS trusts in the UK and one site in Ireland.ParticipantsIn total, 1010 participants aged ≥ 65 years were randomised (intervention,n = 493; usual care,n = 517) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible.InterventionsAll participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their podiatrist and general practitioner. The intervention also consisted of footwear advice, footwear provision if required, foot orthoses and foot- and ankle-strengthening exercises.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the incidence rate of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to first fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness.ResultsThe primary analysis consisted of 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) usual-care participants. There was a non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group [adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.05;p = 0.16]. The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (50% vs. 55%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00;p = 0.05). No differences were observed in key secondary outcomes. No serious, unexpected and related adverse events were reported. The intervention costs £252.17 more per participant (95% CI –£69.48 to £589.38) than usual care, was marginally more beneficial in terms of HRQoL measured via the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions [mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI –0.0050 to 0.0314 QALYs] and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. The intervention was generally acceptable to podiatrists and trial participants.LimitationsOwing to the difficulty in calculating a sample size for a count outcome, the sample size was based on detecting a difference in the proportion of participants experiencing at least one fall, and not the primary outcome. We are therefore unable to confirm if the trial was sufficiently powered for the primary outcome. The findings are not generalisable to patients who are not receiving podiatry care.ConclusionsThe intervention was safe and potentially effective. Although the primary outcome measure did not reach significance, a lower fall rate was observed in the intervention group. The reduction in the proportion of older adults who experienced a fall was of borderline statistical significance. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective.Future workFurther research could examine whether or not the intervention could be delivered in group sessions, by physiotherapists, or in high-risk patients.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN68240461.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Modelling the cost-effectiveness of person-centred care for patients with acute coronary syndrome

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 1317-1327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Pirhonen ◽  
Hanna Gyllensten ◽  
Andreas Fors ◽  
Kristian Bolin
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Time Perspective ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Person-centred care has been shown to be cost-effective compared to usual care for several diseases, including acute coronary syndrome, in a short-term time perspective (< 2 years). The cost-effectiveness of person-centred care in a longer time perspective is largely unknown. Objectives To estimate the mid-term cost-effectiveness of person-centred care compared to usual care for patients (< 65) with acute coronary syndrome, using a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective. Methods The mid-term cost-effectiveness of person-centred care compared to usual care was estimated by projecting the outcomes observed in a randomized-controlled trial together with data from health registers and data from the scientific literature, 3 years beyond the 2-year follow-up, using the developed simulation model. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed using Monte Carlo simulation. Results Person-centred care entails lower costs and improved effectiveness as compared to usual care, for a 2-year time and a 5-year perspective. Monte Carlo simulations suggest that the likelihoods of the person-centred care being cost-effective compared to usual care were between 80 and 99% and between 75 and 90% for a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective (using a 500,000 SEK/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold). Conclusions Person-centred care was less costly and more effective compared to usual care in a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective for patients with acute coronary syndrome under the age of 65.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention for the Prevention of Falls in Older People: The REducing Falls with Orthoses and a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention Trial Findings

Gerontology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (5) ◽  
pp. 503-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belen Corbacho ◽  
Sarah Cockayne ◽  
Caroline Fairhurst ◽  
Catherine E. Hewitt ◽  
Kate Hicks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Older People ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Falls Prevention ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Background: Falls are a major cause of morbidity among older people. Multifaceted interventions may be effective in preventing falls and related fractures. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness alongside the REducing Falls with Orthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention (REFORM) trial. Methods: REFORM was a pragmatic multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial in England and Ireland; 1,010 participants (> 65 years) were randomised to receive either a podiatry intervention (n = 493), including foot and ankle strengthening exercises, foot orthoses, new footwear if required, and a falls prevention leaflet, or usual podiatry treatment plus a falls prevention leaflet (n = 517). Primary outcome: incidence of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. Secondary outcomes: proportion of fallers and quality of life (EQ-5D-3L) which was converted into quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each participant. Differences in mean costs and QALYs at 12 months were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention relative to usual care. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted in accordance with National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence reference case standards, using a regression-based approach with costs expressed in GBP (2015 price). The base case analysis used an intention-to-treat approach on the imputed data set using multiple imputation. Results: There was a small, non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.73–1.05, p = 0.16). Participants allocated to the intervention group accumulated on average marginally higher QALYs than the usual care participants (mean difference 0.0129, 95% CI –0.0050 to 0.0314). The intervention costs were on average GBP 252 more per participant compared to the usual care participants (95% CI GBP –69 to GBP 589). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between GBP 19,494 and GBP 20,593 per QALY gained, below the conventional National Health Service cost-effectiveness thresholds of GBP 20,000 to GBP 30,000 per additional QALY. The probability that the podiatry intervention is cost-effective at a threshold of GBP 30,000 per QALY gained was 0.65. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: The benefits of the intervention justified the moderate cost. The intervention could be a cost-effective option for falls prevention when compared with usual care in the UK.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of single-dose zoledronic acid for nursing home residents with osteoporosis in the USA

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. e022585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kouta Ito
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Home ◽  
Single Dose ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Zoledronic Acid ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Nursing Home Residents ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Routine Administration ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routine administration of single-dose zoledronic acid for nursing home residents with osteoporosis in the USA.DesignMarkov cohort simulation model based on published literature from a healthcare sector perspective over a lifetime horizon.SettingNursing homes.ParticipantsA hypothetical cohort of nursing home residents aged 85 years with osteoporosis.InterventionsTwo strategies were compared: (1) a single intravenous dose of zoledronic acid 5 mg and (2) usual care (supplementation of calcium and vitamin D only).Primary and secondary outcome measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), as measured by cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.ResultsCompared with usual care, zoledronic acid had an ICER of $207 400 per QALY gained and was not cost-effective at a conventional willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained. The results were robust to a reasonable range of assumptions about incidence, mortality, quality-of-life effects and the cost of hip fracture and the cost of zoledronic acid. Zoledronic acid had a potential to become cost-effective if a fracture risk reduction with zoledronic acid was higher than 23% or if 6-month mortality in nursing home residents was lower than 16%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the zoledronic acid would be cost-effective in 14%, 27% and 44% of simulations at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50 000, $100 000 or $200 000 per QALY gained, respectively.ConclusionsRoutine administration of single-dose zoledronic acid in nursing home residents with osteoporosis is not a cost-effective use of resources in the USA but could be justifiable in those with a favourable life expectancy.

scholarly journals Self-managed, computerised word finding therapy as an add-on to usual care for chronic aphasia post-stroke: An economic evaluation

2020 ◽  
pp. 026921552097534
Author(s):  
Nicholas R Latimer ◽  
Arjun Bhadhuri ◽  
Abu O Alshreef ◽  
Rebecca Palmer ◽  
Elizabeth Cross ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Life Time ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Word Finding ◽  
The Cost

Objective: To examine the cost-effectiveness of self-managed computerised word finding therapy as an add-on to usual care for people with aphasia post-stroke. Design: Cost-effectiveness modelling over a life-time period, taking a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social service perspective. Setting: Based on the Big CACTUS randomised controlled trial, conducted in 21 UK NHS speech and language therapy departments. Participants: Big CACTUS included 278 people with long-standing aphasia post-stroke. Interventions: Computerised word finding therapy plus usual care; usual care alone; usual care plus attention control. Main measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated, comparing the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained for each intervention. Credible intervals (CrI) for costs and QALYs, and probabilities of cost-effectiveness, were obtained using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Subgroup and scenario analyses investigated cost-effectiveness in different subsets of the population, and the sensitivity of results to key model inputs. Results: Adding computerised word finding therapy to usual care had an ICER of £42,686 per QALY gained compared with usual care alone (incremental QALY gain: 0.02 per patient (95% CrI: −0.05 to 0.10); incremental costs: £732.73 per patient (95% CrI: £674.23 to £798.05)). ICERs for subgroups with mild or moderate word finding difficulties were £22,371 and £21,262 per QALY gained respectively. Conclusion: Computerised word finding therapy represents a low cost add-on to usual care, but QALY gains and estimates of cost-effectiveness are uncertain. Computerised therapy is more likely to be cost-effective for people with mild or moderate, as opposed to severe, word finding difficulties.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of computerized cognitive–behavioural therapy for the treatment of depression in primary care: findings from the Randomised Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Acceptability of Computerised Therapy (REEACT) trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (10) ◽  
pp. 1825-1835 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Duarte ◽  
S. Walker ◽  
E. Littlewood ◽  
S. Brabyn ◽  
C. Hewitt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Gp Care ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundComputerized cognitive–behavioural therapy (cCBT) forms a core component of stepped psychological care for depression. Existing evidence for cCBT has been informed by developer-led trials. This is the first study based on a large independent pragmatic trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of cCBT as an adjunct to usual general practitioner (GP) care compared with usual GP care alone and to establish the differential cost-effectiveness of a free-to-use cCBT programme (MoodGYM) in comparison with a commercial programme (Beating the Blues) in primary care.MethodCosts were estimated from a healthcare perspective and outcomes measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 2 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness of each cCBT programme was compared with usual GP care. Uncertainty was estimated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were performed to assess the robustness of results.ResultsNeither cCBT programme was found to be cost-effective compared with usual GP care alone. At a £20 000 per QALY threshold, usual GP care alone had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0.55) followed by MoodGYM (0.42) and Beating the Blues (0.04). Usual GP care alone was also the cost-effective intervention in the majority of scenario analyses. However, the magnitude of the differences in costs and QALYs between all groups appeared minor (and non-significant).ConclusionsTechnically supported cCBT programmes do not appear any more cost-effective than usual GP care alone. No cost-effective advantage of the commercially developed cCBT programme was evident compared with the free-to-use cCBT programme. Current UK practice recommendations for cCBT may need to be reconsidered in the light of the results.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of telephone-based weight loss support for patients with knee osteoarthritis: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
KM O’Brien ◽  
JM van Dongen ◽  
A Williams ◽  
SJ Kamper ◽  
J Wiggers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weight Loss ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Weight Management ◽  
Healthy Lifestyle ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Disability Weight ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Disease Specific

AbstractBackgroundTelephone-based support offers a promising option to provide widely accessible and cost-effective weight loss care to the people with knee osteoarthritis who are overweight. While telephone-based interventions targeting weight loss are used routinely in the general populations, the cost-effectiveness of referring patients with knee osteoarthritis to these is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of referral to a telephone-based weight management and healthy lifestyle service for patients with knee osteoarthritis, who are overweight or obese, compared to usual care.MethodsWe randomised 120 patients with knee osteoarthritis to an intervention or usual care control group in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in the intervention group received a referral to an existing non-disease specific 6-month telephone-based weight management and healthy lifestyle service. The primary outcome of the study was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, disability, weight, and body mass index (BMI). Costs included intervention costs, healthcare utilisation costs (healthcare services and medication use) and absenteeism costs due to knee pain. The primary cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective.ResultsMean cost differences between groups (intervention minus control) were, $454 (95%CI: −2735 to 4206) for healthcare costs, $-36, (95%CI: −73 to 2) for medication costs, and $-13 (95%CI: −225 to 235) for absenteeism costs. The total mean difference in societal costs was $1022 (95%CI: −2201 to 4771). For all outcomes, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective compared with usual care was less than 0.33 at all willingness-to-pay values.ConclusionFrom a societal perspective, telephone-based weight loss support, provided using an existing non-disease specific 6-month weight management and healthy lifestyle service was not cost-effective in comparison with usual care for overweight and obese patients with knee osteoarthritis for QALYs, pain intensity, disability, weight, and BMI.

scholarly journals Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (69) ◽  
pp. 1-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tristan Snowsill ◽  
Huiqin Yang ◽  
Ed Griffin ◽  
Linda Long ◽  
Jo Varley-Campbell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Cancer Mortality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Lung Cancer Mortality ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cochrane Library

BackgroundDiagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early.ObjectivesTo estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk populations.Data sourcesBibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library.MethodsClinical effectiveness – a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programmes [such as chest X-ray (CXR)] was conducted. Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses, including network meta-analyses, were performed. Cost-effectiveness – an independent economic model employing discrete event simulation and using a natural history model calibrated to results from a large RCT was developed. There were 12 different population eligibility criteria and four intervention frequencies [(1) single screen, (2) triple screen, (3) annual screening and (4) biennial screening] and a no-screening control arm.ResultsClinical effectiveness – 12 RCTs were included, four of which currently contribute evidence on mortality. Meta-analysis of these demonstrated that LDCT, with ≤ 9.80 years of follow-up, was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.19). The findings also showed that LDCT screening demonstrated a non-statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity detected between studies for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution. Network meta-analysis, including six RCTs, was performed to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction. CXR had a 99.7% probability of being the worst intervention and usual care was ranked second. Cost-effectiveness – screening programmes are predicted to be more effective than no screening, reduce lung cancer mortality and result in more lung cancer diagnoses. Screening programmes also increase costs. Screening for lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), but may be cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a single screen in smokers aged 60–75 years with at least a 3% risk of lung cancer is £28,169 per QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Screening was only cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY in only a minority of analyses.LimitationsClinical effectiveness – the largest of the included RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening. Cost-effectiveness – a representative cost to the NHS of lung cancer has not been recently estimated according to key variables such as stage at diagnosis. Certain costs associated with running a screening programme have not been included.ConclusionsLDCT screening may be clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is considerable uncertainty. There is evidence that a single round of screening could be considered cost-effective at conventional thresholds, but there is significant uncertainty about the effect on costs and the magnitude of benefits.Future workClinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness estimates should be updated with the anticipated results from several ongoing RCTs [particularly the NEderlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) screening trial].Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016048530.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of PoNDER health visitor training for mothers at lower risk of depression: findings on prevention of postnatal depression from a cluster-randomised controlled trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (08) ◽  
pp. 1324-1334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Henderson ◽  
Simon Dixon ◽  
Annette Bauer ◽  
Martin Knapp ◽  
C. Jane Morrell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Postnatal Depression ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

AbstractBackgroundThere is evidence for the cost-effectiveness of health visitor (HV) training to assess postnatal depression (PND) and deliver psychological approaches to women at risk of depression. Whether this approach is cost-effective for lower-risk women is unknown. There is a need to know the cost of HV-delivered universal provision, and how much it might cost to improve health-related quality of life for postnatal women. A sub-study of a cluster-randomised controlled trial in the former Trent region (England) previously investigated the effectiveness of PoNDER HV training in mothers at lower risk of PND. We conducted a parallel cost-effectiveness analysis at 6-months postnatal for all mothers with lower-risk status attributed to an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) score &lt;12 at 6-weeks postnatal.MethodsIntervention HVs were trained in assessment and cognitive behavioural or person-centred psychological support techniques to prevent depression. Outcomes examined: quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains over the period between 6 weeks and 6 months derived from SF-6D (from SF-36); risk-of-depression at 6 months (dichotomising 6-month EPDS scores into lower risk (&lt;12) and at-risk (⩾12).ResultsIn lower-risk women, 1474 intervention (63 clusters) and 767 control participants (37 clusters) had valid 6-week and 6-month EPDS scores. Costs and outcomes data were available for 1459 participants. 6-month adjusted costs were £82 lower in intervention than control groups, with 0.002 additional QALY gained. The probability of cost-effectiveness at £20 000 was very high (99%).ConclusionsPoNDER HV training was highly cost-effective in preventing symptoms of PND in a population of lower-risk women and cost-reducing over 6 months.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document