Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Optimal Surveillance Strategies for Early-Stage Cutaneous Melanoma Post Primary Tumor Excision: An Economic Evaluation

Background. Consensus on standardized active surveillance or follow-up care by clinicians is lacking leading to considerable variation in practice across countries. An important structural modelling consideration is that self-examination by patients and their partners can detect melanoma recurrence outside of active surveillance regimes. Objectives. To identify candidate melanoma surveillance strategies for American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I disease and compare them with the current recommended practice in a cost-utility analysis framework. Methods. In consultation with UK clinical experts, a microsimulation model was built in TreeAge Pro 2019 R1.0 (Williamstown, MA, USA) to evaluate surveillance strategies for AJCC stage IA and IB melanoma patients separately. The model incorporated patient behaviors such as self-detection and emergency visits to examine suspicious lesions. A National Health Service (NHS) perspective was taken. Model input parameters were taken from the literature and where data were not available, local expert opinion was sought. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, one-way sensitivity analysis on pertinent parameters and value of information was performed. Results. In the base-case probabilistic sensitivity analysis, less intensive surveillance strategies for AJCC stage IA and IB had lower total lifetime costs than the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended strategy with similar effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life years and thereby likely to be cost-effective. Many strategies had similar effectiveness due to the relatively low chance of recurrence and the high rate of self-detection. Sensitivity and scenario analyses did not change these findings. Conclusions. Our model findings suggest that less resource intensive surveillance may be cost-effective compared with the current NICE surveillance guidelines. However, to advocate convincingly for changes, better evidence is required.

Impact of Delaying Effective and Cost-Effective Policy Decisions: An Example From Cervical Cancer Prevention in Norway

Introduction. Delayed implementation of evidence-driven interventions has consequences that can be formally evaluated. In Norway, programs to prevent cervical cancer (CC)—screening and treatment of precancerous lesions and prophylactic vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) infection—have been implemented, but each encountered delays in policy implementation. To examine the effect of these delays, we project the outcomes that would have been achieved with timely implementation of two policy changes compared with the de facto delays in implementation (in Norway). Methods. We used a multimodeling approach that combined HPV transmission and cervical carcinogenesis to estimate the health outcomes and timeline for CC elimination associated with the implementation of two CC prevention policy decisions: a multicohort vaccination program of women up to age 26 years with bivalent vaccine in 2009 compared with actual “delayed” implementation in 2016, and a switch from cytology to primary HPV-based testing in 2015 compared with “delayed” rollout in 2020. Results. Timely implementation of two policy changes compared with current Norwegian prevention policy timeline could have averted approximately 970 additional cases (range of top 10 sets: 830–1060) and accelerated the CC elimination timeline by around 4 years (from 2039 to 2035). Conclusions. If delaying implementation of effective and cost-effective interventions is being considered, the decision-making process should include quantitative analyses on the effects of delays.

Framing Benefits in Decision Aids: Effects of Varying Contextualizing Statements on Decisions About Sacubitril-Valsartan for Heart Failure

Background. Presenting numeric data alone may result in patients underappreciating clinically significant benefits. Contextualizing statements to counter this may raise concern about absence of neutrality. These issues arose during construction of a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan, a heart failure medication associated with a ∼3% absolute reduction in 2-year mortality that carries high out-of-pocket cost. A contextualizing statement framing this as a “pretty big benefit” was incorporated. The impact of statements like this within decision aids is unknown. Objective. This online Qualtrics survey sought to deepen understanding of benefit framing by testing the impact of varying contextualizing statements within a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan. Design. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of six abbreviated versions of a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan that varied only by contextualizing statement (ranging from strongly neutral to strongly positive and using relative and absolute risk reductions). Participants were asked to answer questions regarding the likelihood of taking the medication at a cost of $50/month and their perception of the drug’s benefits. Results. A total of 1873 participants who were demographically similar to the heart failure population completed the survey. Fifty-four percent were willing to take sacubitril-valsartan at $50/month. Each of the five experimental contextualizing statements was compared with the baseline version; no significant differences were observed in reported likelihood of taking sacubitril-valsartan. After controlling for demographics and covariates, group assignment did not predict likelihood of taking the medication. Higher income, better self-reported health status, and younger age were associated with increased likelihood of taking sacubitril-valsartan. Limitations. This study used a hypothetical scenario and evaluated one method of delivering contextualizing statements. Conclusions. Contextualizing statements as tested within this decision aid did not affect decision making.

Estimating the Cost of Surgical Care Purchased in the Community by the Veterans Health Administration

Background. Veterans’ access to Veterans Affairs (VA)-purchased community care expanded due to large increases in funding provided in the 2014 Veterans Choice Act. Objectives. To compare costs between VA-delivered care and VA payments for purchased care for two commonly performed surgeries: total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) and cataract surgeries. Research Design. Descriptive statistics and regressions examining costs in VA-delivered and VA-purchased care (fiscal year [FY] 2018 [October 2017 to September 2018]). Subjects. A total of 13,718 TKAs, of which 6,293 (46%) were performed in VA. A total of 91,659 cataract surgeries, of which 65,799 (72%) were performed in VA. Measures. Costs of VA-delivered care based on activity-based cost estimates; costs of VA-purchased care based on approved and paid claims. Results. Ninety-eight percent of VA-delivered TKAs occurred in inpatient hospitals, with an average cost of $28,969 (SD $10,778). The majority (86%) of VA-purchased TKAs were also performed at inpatient hospitals, with an average payment of $13,339 (SD $23,698). VA-delivered cataract surgeries were performed at hospitals as outpatient procedures, with an average cost of $4,301 (SD $2,835). VA-purchased cataract surgeries performed at hospitals averaged $1,585 (SD $629); those performed at ambulatory surgical centers cost an average of $1,346 (SD $463). We also found significantly higher Nosos risk scores for patients who used VA-delivered versus VA-purchased care. Conclusions. Costs of VA-delivered care were higher than payments for VA-purchased care, but this partly reflects legislative caps limiting VA payments to community providers to Medicare amounts. Higher patient risk scores in the VA could indicate that community providers are reluctant to accept high-risk patients because of Medicare reimbursements, or that VA providers prefer to keep the more complex patients in VA.

Patients’ Willingness to Share Limited Endoscopic Resources: A Brief Report on the Results of a Large Regional Survey

Background. In some health care systems, patients face long wait times for screening colonoscopy. We sought to assess whether patients at low risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy so higher-risk peers could undergo colonoscopy sooner. Methods. We surveyed 1054 Veterans regarding their attitudes toward repeat colonoscopy and risk-based prioritization. We used multivariable regression to identify patient factors associated with willingness to delay screening for a higher-risk peer. Results. Despite a physician recommendation to stop screening, 29% of respondents reported being “not at all likely” to stop. However, 94% reported that they would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy for a higher-risk peer. Greater trust in physician and greater health literacy were positively associated with willingness to wait, while greater perceived threat of CRC and Black or Latino race/ethnicity were negatively associated with willingness to wait. Conclusion. Despite high enthusiasm for repeat screening, patients were willing to delay their own colonoscopy for higher-risk peers. Appealing to altruism could be effective when utilizing scarce resources.

Implementing an Electronic Clinical Decision Support Tool Into Routine Care: A Qualitative Study of Stakeholders’ Perceptions of a Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction Tool

Objective. To explore barriers and facilitators to implementing an evidence-based clinical decision support (CDS) tool (BREASTChoice) about post-mastectomy breast reconstruction into routine care. Materials and Methods. A stakeholder advisory group of cancer survivors, clinicians who discuss and/or perform breast reconstruction in women with cancer, and informatics professionals helped design and review the interview guide. Based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted qualitative semistructured interviews with key stakeholders (patients, clinicians, informatics professionals) to explore intervention, setting characteristics, and process-level variables that can impact implementation. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed based on the CFIR framework using both inductive and deductive methods. Results. Fifty-seven potential participants were contacted; 49 (85.9%) were eligible, and 35 (71.4%) were enrolled, continuing until thematic saturation was reached. Participants consisted of 13 patients, 13 clinicians, and 9 informatics professionals. Stakeholders thought that BREASTChoice was useful and provided patients with an evidence-based source of information about post-mastectomy breast reconstruction, including their personalized risks. They felt that BREASTChoice could support shared decision making, improve workflow, and possibly save consultation time, but were uncertain about the best time to deliver BREASTChoice to patients. Some worried about cost, data availability, and security of integrating the tool into an electronic health record. Most acknowledged the importance of showing clinical utility to gain institutional buy-in and encourage routine adoption. Discussion and Conclusion. Stakeholders felt that BREASTChoice could support shared decision making, improve workflow, and reduce consultation time. Addressing key questions such as cost, data integration, and timing of delivering BREASTChoice could build institutional buy-in for CDS implementation. Results can guide future CDS implementation studies.

Factors Associated With Obtaining Lung Cancer Screening Among Persons Who Smoke

Background. Screening with low-dose computed tomography scans can reduce lung cancer deaths but uptake remains low. This study examines psychosocial factors associated with obtaining lung cancer screening (LCS) among individuals. Methods. This is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial conducted with 13 state quitlines’ clients. Participants who met age and smoking history criteria were enrolled and followed-up for 6 months. Only participants randomized to the intervention group (a patient decision aid) were included in this analysis. A logistic regression was performed to identify determinants of obtaining LCS 6 months after the intervention. Results. There were 204 participants included in this study. Regarding individual attitudes, high and moderate levels of concern about overdiagnosis were associated with a decreased likelihood of obtaining LCS compared with lower levels of concern (high levels of concern, odds ratio [OR] 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04–0.65; moderate levels of concern, OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05–0.53). In contrast, higher levels of anticipated regret about not obtaining LCS and later being diagnosed with lung cancer were associated with an increased likelihood of being screened compared with lower levels of anticipated regret (OR 5.59, 95% CI 1.72–18.10). Other potential harms related to LCS were not significant. Limitations. Follow-up may not have been long enough for all individuals who wished to be screened to complete the scan. Additionally, participants may have been more health motivated due to recruitment via tobacco quitlines. Conclusions. Anticipated regret about not obtaining screening is associated with screening behavior, whereas concern about overdiagnosis is associated with decreased likelihood of LCS. Implications. Decision support research may benefit from further examining anticipated regret in screening decisions. Additional training and information may be helpful to address concerns regarding overdiagnosis.

Supporting Communication of Shared Decision-Making Principles in US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations

Aims. This methods project was conducted to support the US Preventive Services Task Force’s (USPSTF) consideration of how information pertinent to shared decision making (SDM) can be best communicated in its recommendations. Methods. The project included a literature scan to identify SDM frameworks, audit of six USPSTF recommendations to judge the completeness of SDM communication, input from eight SDM experts on the most helpful SDM guidance to provide in USPSTF recommendations, and review of USPSTF recommendations and evidence reports to establish criteria for identifying topics that would most benefit from additional communication resources. Results. We identified eight SDM frameworks and selected one to guide the audit of USPSTF recommendations. All six recommendations include SDM elements related to the patient’s role in decision making, preventive service being considered, pros and cons of options, uncertainties about benefits and harms, and importance of patient preferences. Two SDM elements are not routinely communicated in the recommendations—identification of not screening or initiating preventive medication as an alternative and the importance of patient understanding of options. Experts offered suggestions for essential SDM elements to address, such as assessing decisional conflict to measure patient uncertainty in choosing an option and highlighting uncertainty in estimates of benefit and harm, credibility of the evidence base, precision of estimates, and applicability to the individual patient. We developed six criteria for selection of USPSTF recommendations to supplement with a communication resource. Conclusions. The findings of this project can assist the USPSTF and other clinical guideline developers in incorporating SDM information in recommendations and determining which topics would most benefit from additional communication resources to support clinicians in engaging patients in SDM.

Paths of Emergency Department Care: Development of a Decision Aid to Facilitate Shared Decision Making in Goals of Care Discussions in the Acute Setting

Background Goals of care (GOC) conversations in the emergency department (ED) are often a brief discussion of code status rather than a patient-oriented dialogue. We aimed to develop a guide to facilitate conversations between ED clinicians and patients to elicit patient values and establish goals for end-of-life care, while maintaining ED efficiency. Paths of ED Care, a conversation guide, is the product of this work. Design A multidisciplinary/multispecialty group used recommended practices to adapt a GOC conversation guide for ED patients. ED clinicians used the guide and provided feedback on content, design, and usability. Patient-clinician interactions were recorded for discussion analysis, and both were surveyed to inform iterative refinement. A series of discussions with patient representatives, multidisciplinary clinicians, bioethicists, and health care designers yielded feedback. We used a process similar to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and provide comparison to these. Results A conversation guide, eight pages with each page 6 by 6 inches in dimension, uses patient-oriented prompts and includes seven sections: 1) evaluation of patient/family understanding of disease, 2) explanation of possible trajectories, 3) introduction to different pathways of care, 4) explanation of pathways, 5) assessment of understanding and concerns, 6) code status, and 7) personalized summary. Limitations Recruitment of sufficient number of patients/providers to the project was the primary limitation. Methods are limited to qualitative analysis of guide creation and feasibility without quantitative analysis. Conclusions Paths of ED Care is a guide to facilitate patient-centered shared decision making for ED patients, families, and clinicians regarding GOC. This may ensure care concordant with patients’ values and preferences. Use of the guide was well-received and facilitated meaningful conversations between patients and providers.