17 research outputs found
A proposal to replace 'true and fair view' with 'acceptable risk of material misstatement'
Error Rates, Error Projection, and Consideration of Sampling Risk: Audit Sampling Data from the Field
Introduction: A tribute to Ross Skinner Numéro spécial de perspectives comptables canadiennes à la mémoire de Ross Skinner
Auditability of Accounting Estimates and the Iasbs Conceptual Framework Exposure Draft (2015)
Managerial Miscalibration and Its Effects on the Auditability of Accounting Estimates: Evidence from Pension Accounting
Mixed-methods economic evaluation of the implementation of tobacco treatment programs in National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.
BACKGROUND: The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) was launched in 2017 as a part of the NCI Cancer Moonshot program to assist NCI-designated cancer centers in developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients. Participating centers have implemented varied evidence-based programs that fit their institutional resources and needs, offering a wide range of services including in-person and telephone-based counseling, point of care, interactive voice response systems, referral to the quitline, text- and web-based services, and medications.
METHODS: We used a mixed methods comparative case study design to evaluate system-level implementation costs across 15 C3I-funded cancer centers that reported for at least one 6-month period between July 2018 and June 2020.
RESULTS: The largest median operating cost category was personnel, with the highest personnel costs attributable to the provision of in-person program services. Monthly (non-zero) cost ranges for other categories were medications, materials, training, technology, and equipment. Median cost-per-participant was 2688, with sites offering different combinations of program components, ranging from individually-delivered in-person counseling only to one program that offered all components.
CONCLUSIONS: Among most centers that have progressed in tobacco treatment program implementation, cost-per-quit was modest relative to other prevention interventions. Although select centers have achieved similar average costs by offering program components of various levels of intensity, they have varied widely in program reach and effectiveness. Evaluating implementation costs of such programs alongside reach and effectiveness is necessary to provide decision makers in oncology settings with the important additional information needed to optimize resource allocation when establishing tobacco treatment programs