Cost-Utility of Stepped Care Targeting Psychological Distress in Patients With Head and Neck or Lung Cancer

Abstract

Purpose A stepped care (SC) program in which an effective yet least resource-intensive treatment is delivered to patients first and followed, when necessary, by more resource-intensive treatments was found to be effective in improving distress levels of patients with head and neck cancer or lung cancer. Information on the value of this program for its cost is now called for. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the cost-utility of the SC program compared with care-as-usual (CAU) in patients with head and neck cancer or lung cancer who have psychological distress. Patients and MethodsIn total, 156 patients were randomly assigned to SC or CAU. Intervention costs, direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs, productivity losses, and health-related quality-of-life data during the intervention or control period and 12 months of follow-up were calculated by using Trimbos and Institute of Medical Technology Assessment Cost Questionnaire for Psychiatry, Productivity and Disease Questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 Dimension measures and data from the hospital information system. The SC program's value for the cost was investigated by comparing mean cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). ResultsAfter imputation of missing data, mean cumulative costs were -V3,950 (95% CI, -V8,158 to -V190) lower, and mean number of QALYs was 0.116 (95% CI, 0.005 to 0.227) higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. The intervention group had a probability of 96% that cumulative QALYs were higher and cumulative costs were lower than in the control group. Four additional analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of this finding, and they found that the intervention group had a probability of 84% to 98% that cumulative QALYs were higher and a probability of 91% to 99% that costs were lower than in the control group. ConclusionSC is highly likely to be cost-effective; the number of QALYs was higher and cumulative costs were lower for SC compared with CAU.

Cost‐utility analysis of meaning‐centered group psychotherapy for cancer survivors

“…Economic evaluations of psychosocial interventions for cancer patients up until now are scarce; most of these studies find promising results showing that psychosocial interventions for cancer patients can be good value for money . As this is the first study to assess the cost‐utility of a meaning‐focused group intervention for cancer survivors from a societal perspective, we are not able to directly compare our findings with previous studies.…”

“…21 can be good value for money. 5,[23][24][25] As this is the first study to assess the cost-utility of a meaning-focused group intervention for cancer survivors from a societal perspective, we are not able to directly compare our findings with previous studies. One economic evaluation has been conducted on supportive-expressive group therapy (SEGT), which focuses on emotional expression, social support, coping, and also on existential issues, including meaning.…”

Finding My Way: results of a multicentre RCT evaluating a web-based self-guided psychosocial intervention for newly diagnosed cancer survivors

“…Collectively these trials demonstrate that targeting the acute-treatment phase is feasible independently or as part of a stepped-care program and has the potential to improve quality of life and reduce distress [20,21]. However, whether this is true without therapist-guidance, or in those not screened for distress, is yet to be established in a large/sufficiently powered RCT.…”

Costs from a healthcare and societal perspective among cancer patients after total laryngectomy: are they related to patient activation?

“…A recent study comparing psychologist-led care with a nurse-led self-management intervention in distressed cancer patients showed no evidence for cost-effectiveness of the self-management intervention [ 12 ]. However, a stepped care program targeting psychological distress in cancer patients consisting of four steps, including a self-help intervention, was found to be more effective and highly likely to be less costly compared to usual care [ 13 , 16 ].…”