Combining Individual-Level Discrete Choice Experiment Estimates and Costs to Inform Health Care Management Decisions about Customized Care: The Case of Follow-Up Strategies after Breast Cancer Treatment

AbstractObjectiveCustomized care can be beneficial for patients when preferences for health care programs are heterogeneous. Yet, there is little guidance on how individual-specific preferences and cost data can be combined to inform health care decisions about customized care. Therefore, we propose a discrete choice experiment–based approach that illustrates how to analyze the cost-effectiveness of customized (and noncustomized) care programs to provide information for hospital managers.MethodsWe exploit the fact that choice models make it possible to determine whether preference heterogeneity exists and to obtain individual-specific parameter estimates. We present an approach of how to combine these individual-specific parameter estimates from a random parameter model (mixed logit model) with cost data to analyze the cost-effectiveness of customized care and demonstrate our method in the case of follow-up after breast cancer treatment.ResultsWe found that there is significant preference heterogeneity for all except two attributes of breast cancer treatment follow-up and that the fully customized care program leads to higher utility and lower costs than the current standardized program. Compared with the single alternative program, the fully customized care program has increased benefits and higher costs. Thus, it is necessary for health care decision makers to judge whether the use of resources for customized care is cost-effective.ConclusionsDecision makers should consider using the results obtained from our methodological approach when they consider implementing customized health care programs, because it may help to find ways to save costs and increase patient satisfaction

Performance of the EQ-5D and the EQ-5D+C in elderly patients with cognitive impairments

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The EQ-5D is a reliable tool for measuring Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). However, concern has been expressed that it may ignore elements of HRQoL, particularly cognition. In response to this concern, the EQ-5D has been extended with a cognitive dimension (EQ-5D+C). The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the EQ-5D and the EQ-5D+C in elderly patients with cognitive impairments by assessing their construct validity and responsiveness.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data from the MEDICIE study (n = 196) were used, in which all questionnaires were rated by proxies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Regarding construct validity, we found similar correlations between the EQ-5D and the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and between the EQ-5D+C and the MMSE. Furthermore, both the EQ-5D and the EQ-5D+C were responsive to changes in the MMSE, with the EQ-5D performing slightly better.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We conclude that the EQ-5D performs well for evaluating HRQoL in a population with cognitive impairments. Based on the results of this explorative study, it does not seem necessary to adjust the current classification system by adding a cognitive dimension. However, in order to compare both instruments regarding utility values, it is necessary to develop a new scoring algorithm for the EQ-5D+C by conducting a general population study. Considering the explorative nature of this study, it is recommended that more aspects of the validity of both the EQ-5D and the EQ-5D+C are explored in patients with cognitive impairments using a more tailored study design.</p

Investigating the complementary value of discrete choice experiments for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation research: a questionnaire survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The potential barriers and facilitators to change should guide the choice of implementation strategy. Implementation researchers believe that existing methods for the evaluation of potential barriers and facilitators are not satisfactory. Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are relatively new in the health care sector to investigate preferences, and may be of value in the field of implementation research. The objective of our study was to investigate the complementary value of DCE for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation research.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Clinical subject was the implementation of the guideline for breast cancer surgery in day care. We identified 17 potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of this guideline. We used a traditional questionnaire that was made up of statements about the potential barriers and facilitators. Respondents answered 17 statements on a five-point scale ranging from one (fully disagree) to five (fully agree). The potential barriers and facilitators were included in the DCE as decision attributes. Data were gathered among anaesthesiologists, surgical oncologists, and breast care nurses by means of a paper-and-pencil questionnaire.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The overall response was 10%. The most striking finding was that the responses to the traditional questionnaire hardly differentiated between barriers. Forty-seven percent of the respondents thought that DCE is an inappropriate method. These respondents considered DCE too difficult and too time-consuming. Unlike the traditional questionnaire, the results of a DCE provide implementation researchers and clinicians with a relative attribute importance ranking that can be used to prioritize potential barriers and facilitators to change, and hence to better fine-tune the implementation strategies to the specific problems and challenges of a particular implementation process.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results of our DCE and traditional questionnaire would probably lead to different implementation strategies. Although there is no 'gold standard' for prioritising potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of change, theoretically, DCE would be the method of choice. However, the feasibility of using DCE was less favourable. Further empirical applications should investigate whether DCE can really make a valuable contribution to the implementation science.</p

Fax +41 61 306 12 34 E-Mail karger@karger

of Women&apos;s Health instruments. Both aggregate analyses and country-specific analyses are planned for total costs per patient. Costs are broken down into cost drivers and into the various payers that incur costs. Conclusions: The cost estimates provided by the EndoCost cost-of-illness analysis may be used to justify the prioritisation of future research in endometriosis

Integrating evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions

Background: Despite a strong movement towards active patient involvement in healthcare policy decisions, systematic and explicit consideration of evidence of this research on patient preferences seems limited. Furthermore, little is known about the opinions of several stakeholders towards consideration of research evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions. This paper describes the protocol for an explorative study on the integration of research on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions. The study questions: to what extent research evidence on patient preferences is considered in current procedures for healthcare policy decisions; opinions of stakeholders regarding the integration of this type of evidence in healthcare policy decisions; and what could be a decision framework for the integration of such research evidence in healthcare policy decisions. Methods/design: The study is divided in three sub-studies, predominantly using qualitative methods. The first sub-study is a scoping review in five European countries to investigate whether and how results of research on patient preferences are considered in current procedures for coverage decisions and clinical practice guideline development. The second sub-study is a qualitative study to explore the opinions of stakeholders with regard to the possibilities for integrating evidence on patient preferences in the process of healthcare decision-making in the Netherlands. The third sub-study is the development of a decision framework for research on patient preferences. The framework will consist of: a process description regarding the place of evidence on patient preferences in the decision-making process; and a taxonomy describing different terminologies and conceptualisations of ‘preferences’ and an overview of existing methodologies for investigating preferences. The concept framework will be presented to and discussed with experts. Discussion: This study will create awareness regarding the existence and potential value of research evidence on patient preferences for healthcare policy decision-making and provides insight in the methods for investigating patient preferences and the barriers and facilitators for integration of such research in healthcare policy decisions. Results of the study will be useful for researchers, clinical practice guideline developers, healthcare policy makers, and patient representatives

Societal costs of subclinical depressive symptoms in Dutch adolescents: a cost‐of‐illness study

Background: Subclinical depressive symptoms are highly prevalent among adolescents and are associated with negative consequences, which may pose an economic burden for society. We conducted a prevalence-based cost-of-illness study using a societal perspective to investigate the cost-of-illness of subclinical depressive symptoms among adolescents. Methods: Using a bottom-up approach, cost questionnaires were assessed to measure costs from 237 Dutch families with an adolescent aged 11–18 with subclinical depressive symptoms (of which 34 met the criteria of a depressive disorder). The study is registered in the Dutch Trial Register (Trial NL5584/NTR6176; www.trialregister.nl/trial/5584). Results: Our calculations show that adolescents with subclinical depressive symptoms cost the Dutch society more than €42 million annually, expressed in costs related to depressive symptoms. Secondary analyses were performed to test the reliability and stability of the costs. When costs related to psychological problems were considered, the annual costs amounted to €67 million. The total societal costs related to physical problems amounted to approximately €126 million. All costs combined (depressive, psychological, behavioural and physical problems and other reasons) amounted to a €243 million. Total costs were highest for physical-related problems of the adolescent (52% of the total costs), followed by psychological (28%), depressive (17%) and behavioural problems (1%). Using an international prevalence rate, societal costs related to depressive symptoms resulted in €54 million a year. Conclusions: Cost-effective prevention programmes seem warranted given the high societal costs and risk of future costs as subclinical depressive symptoms could be a precursor of clinical depression later in life

Respiratory adverse effects of opioids for breathlessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Previous studies have shown that opioids can reduce chronic breathlessness in advanced disease. However, physicians remain reluctant to prescribe opioids for these patients, commonly due to fear of respiratory adverse effects. Aim: To systematically review reported respiratory adverse effects of opioids in patients with advanced disease and chronic breathlessness. Methods: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were searched. Two independent researchers screened against predefined inclusion criteria and extracted data. Meta-analysis was conducted where possible. Results: We included 63 out of 1990 articles, describing 67 studies. Meta-analysis showed an increase in partial pressure of carbon dioxide (0.27 kPa; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.45) and no significant change in partial pressure of oxygen and oxygen saturation (both p>0.05). Non-serious respiratory depression (definition variable/not stated) was described in 4/1064 patients. One cancer patient pre-treated with morphine for pain needed temporary respiratory support following nebulized morphine for breathlessness (single case study). Conclusions: We found no evidence of significant or clinically relevant respiratory adverse effects of opioids for chronic breathlessness. Heterogeneity of design and study population, and low study quality are limitations. Larger studies designed to detect respiratory adverse effects are needed

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rubber band ligation versus sutured mucopexy versus haemorrhoidectomy in patients with recurrent haemorrhoidal disease (Napoleon trial):Study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Background: Currently, there is no consensus regarding the best treatment option in recurrent haemorrhoidal disease (HD), due to a lack of solid evidence. The Napoleon trial aims to provide high-level evidence on the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of repeat rubber band ligation (RBL) versus sutured mucopexy versus haemorrhoidectomy in patients with recurrent HD. Methods: This is a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Patients with recurrent HD grade II and III, >= 18 years of age and who had at least two RBL treatments in the last three years are eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria include previous rectal or anal surgery, rectal radiation, pre-existing sphincter injury or otherwise pathologies of the colon and rectum, pregnancy, presence of hypercoagulability disorders, and medically unfit for surgery (ASA > III). Between June 2020 and May 2022, 558 patients will be randomized to receive either: (1) RBL, (2) sutured mucopexy, or (3) haemorrhoidectomy. The primary outcomes are recurrence after 52 weeks and patient-reported symptoms measured by the PROM-HISS. Secondary outcomes are impact on daily life, treatment satisfaction, early and late complication rates, health-related quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness, and budget impact. Cost-effectiveness will be expressed in societal costs per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) (based on EQ-5D-5L), and healthcare costs per recurrence avoided. Discussion: The best treatment option for recurrent HD remains unknown. The comparison of three generally accepted treatment strategies in a randomized controlled trial will provide high-level evidence on the most (cost) effective treatment