An Economic Evaluation Supported by Qualitative Data About the Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) versus Standard Treatment Pathway in the Management of Patients with Head and Neck Cancer

Victory 'Segun Ezeofor, Llinos Haf Spencer, Simon N Rogers, Anastasios Kanatas, Derek Lowe, Cherith J Semple, Jeffrey R Hanna, Seow Tien Yeo, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, Victory 'Segun Ezeofor, Llinos Haf Spencer, Simon N Rogers, Anastasios Kanatas, Derek Lowe, Cherith J Semple, Jeffrey R Hanna, Seow Tien Yeo, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards

Abstract

Background: The head and neck cancer (HNC) Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) is a condition-specific prompt list that allows patients to raise concerns to cancer consultants that otherwise might be overlooked.

Objective: This is the first economic evaluation of the PCI in patients with HNC investigating the costs and effects to the health service of not prioritising certain treatment pathways in addition to the primary cancer pathway. Additional costs can be accrued due to delayed referral to other appropriate services, e.g. hospital dentist. Economic evidence could influence future policy direction in this area globally.

Methods: Alongside a 3-year clustered randomised controlled trial, an economic evaluation was undertaken with Client Service Receipt Inventory data collected at three different time points (baseline and 6 and 12 months post-baseline). Patients were identified by a multidisciplinary team at the trial clinics. This economic analysis compared the PCI intervention versus the non-PCI treatment pathway. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of the PCI versus non-PCI intervention treatment pathways. Qualitative data were also collected from seven consultants to triangulate findings from the economic evaluation.

Results: The analysis used data from 191 patients (66% of the full trial sample). The PCI inventory was low cost, at just over £13 per participant. The PCI intervention was cost effective and also cost saving, with an incremental cost difference of £295.91 over the 12-month follow-up period. The QALY values were higher in the PCI intervention strategy, with a value of 0.79, whereas the non-PCI group had a value of 0.76, thus the PCI intervention was dominant. The sensitivity analysis showed that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, the probability of being cost effective was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.83). Qualitative results showed that consultants using the PCI reported an enhanced awareness of patients' overall post-treatment needs.

Discussion: The PCI provided an effective means to conduct clinical consultations by avoiding unnecessary healthcare costs and focussing on aspects of care most important to patients. The cost per QALY gain was within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline threshold. The economic evaluation showed that the PCI intervention strategy was dominant and therefore cost saving to the national health service (NHS) and was more effective in terms of treatment.

Conclusion: The PCI appears to be a low-cost intervention that generates a cost-effective benefit to patients from a NHS perspective if rolled out as part of routine care. Qualitative evidence has shown that the use of the PCI is supported by consultants in routine practice.

Trial registration: Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT03086629.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Bootstrapping scatterplot for 2000 simulated values (complete case analysis)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The probability of the cost-effectiveness within the context of the willingness to pay threshold

References

    1. National Health Service (NHS). Head and neck cancer—NHS. 2020. . Cited 10 Nov 2020
    1. Devins GM, Wong JC, Payne AYM, Lebel S, Lee RNF, Mah K, Irish J, Rodin G. Distancing, self-esteem, and subjective well-being in head and neck cancer. Psychooncology. 2015;24(11):1506–1513. doi: 10.1002/pon.3760.
    1. Griffin SJ, Kinmonth AL, Veltman MWM, Gillard S, Grant J, Stewart M. Effect on health-related outcomes of interventions to alter the interaction between patients and practitioners: a systematic review of trials. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(6):595–608. doi: 10.1370/afm.142.
    1. Rogers SN, Clifford N, Lowe D. Patient and carer unmet needs: a survey of the British association of head and neck oncology nurses. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;49(5):343–348. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2010.06.017.
    1. Miller N, Rogers SN. A review of question prompt lists used in the oncology setting with comparison to the Patient Concerns Inventory. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2016;27(1):1–15.
    1. Brown RF, Butow PN, Dunn SM, Tattersall MHN. Promoting patient participation and shortening cancer consultations: a randomised trial. Br J Cancer. 2001;85(9):1273–1279. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2001.2073.
    1. Ghazali N, Roe B, Lowe D, Rogers SN. Uncovering patients’ concerns in routine head and neck oncology follow up clinics: an exploratory study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;51(4):294–300. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2012.08.002.
    1. Kanatas A, Humphris G, Lowe D, Rogers SN. Further analysis of the emotional consequences of head and neck cancer as reflected by the Patients’ Concerns Inventory. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;53(8):711–718. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.02.026.
    1. Rogers SN, Lowe D. Screening for dysfunction to promote multidisciplinary intervention by using the university of washington quality of life questionnaire. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;135(4):369–375. doi: 10.1001/archoto.2009.7.
    1. Shunmugasundaram C, Rutherford C, Butow PN, Sundaresan P, Dhillon HM. Content comparison of unmet needs self-report measures used in patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review. Psychooncology. 2019;28(12):2295–2306. doi: 10.1002/pon.5257.
    1. Rogers SN, Lowe D, Lowies C, Yeo ST, Allmark C, Mcavery D, Humphris GM, Flavel R, Semple C, Thomas SJ, Kanatas A. Improving quality of life through the routine use of the patient concerns inventory for head and neck cancer patients: a cluster preference randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12885-018-4355-0.
    1. Rogers SN, Allmark C, Bekiroglu F, Edwards RT, Fabbroni G, Flavel R, Highet V, Ho MWS, Humphris GM, Jones TM, Khattak O, Lancaster J, Loh C, Lowe D, Lowies C, Macareavy D, Moor J, Ong TK, Prasai A, Roland N, Semple C, Spencer LH, Tandon S, Thomas SJ, Schache A, Shaw RJ, Kanatas A. Improving quality of life through the routine use of the patient concerns inventory for head and neck cancer patients: main results of a cluster preference randomised controlled trial. Eur Arch Oto Rhino Laryngol. 2021;278(9):3435–3449. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06533-3.
    1. Rogers SN, Lowe D. An evaluation of the head and neck cancer patient concerns inventory across the merseyside and cheshire network. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;52(7):615–623. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.04.011.
    1. Richardson A, Dewar S, Barnish L, Tritton J, Archer J, Corrigan A, Dawson T, Young N, Ainsworth K, Brennan J. Holistic Needs Assessment for people with cancer. A practical guide for healthcare professionals. National Cancer Action Team. 2017.
    1. Richards M, Corner J, Maher J. The National Cancer Survivorship Initiative: new and emerging evidence on the ongoing needs of cancer survivors. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(S1):S1–4. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.416.
    1. Rogers SN, Allmark C, Bekiroglu F, Tudor R, Gillon E. Improving quality of life through the routine use of the patient concerns inventory for head and neck cancer patients: baseline results in a cluster preference randomised controlled trial. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2020;277(12):3435–3447. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06077-6.
    1. Ridyard CH, Hughes DA. Taxonomy for methods for resource use measurement. Health Econ. 2015;24:372–378. doi: 10.1002/hec.3029.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
    1. Sutton EJ, Coast J. Development of a supportive care measure for economic evaluation of end-of-life care using qualitative methods. Palliat Med. 2013;28(2):151–157. doi: 10.1177/0269216313489368.
    1. Coast J. Qualitative methods for health economics. London: Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd; 2017.
    1. Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. J Posit Psychol. 2017;12(3):297–298. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613.
    1. Rakićević J, Savić G, Bulajić M. Selecting an appropriate method for missing data imputation: A case of countries ranking. In Symposium proceedings-XV International symposium Symorg 2016: Reshaping the Future Through Sustainable Business Development and Entepreneurship. University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences; 2016.
    1. Roberts MB, Sullivan MC, Winchester SB. Examining solutions to missing data in longitudinal nursing research. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2017;22(2):12179. doi: 10.1111/jspn.12179.
    1. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit costs of health and social care 2020. Personal Social Services Research Unit. Personal Social Services Research Unit, Kent, UK; 2020.
    1. NHS Improvement. National Cost Collection Data. 2020 [Cited 2020 Apr 21].
    1. Charles JM, Edwards RT, Bywater T, Hutchings J. Micro-costing in public health economics: steps towards a standardized framework, using the incredible years toddler parenting program as a worked example. Prev Sci. 2013;14(4):377–389. doi: 10.1007/s11121-012-0302-5.
    1. Van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng Y, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708–715. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Position statement on use of the EQ-5D-5L value set for England (updated October 2019). 2019.
    1. Barber JA, Thompson SG. Analysis of cost data in randomized trials: an application of the non-parametric bootstrap. Stat Med. 2000;19(23):3219–3236. doi: 10.1002/1097-0258(20001215)19:23<3219::AID-SIM623>;2-P.
    1. Xu X, Xia L, Zhang Q, Wu S, Wu M, Liu H. The ability of different imputation methods for missing values in mental measurement questionnaires. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20:1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-00932-0.
    1. Morrison V, Spencer LH, Totton N, Pye K, Yeo ST, Butterworth C, Hall L, Whitaker R, Edwards RT, Timmis LJ, Hoare Z, Neal RD, Wilkinson C, Leeson S. Trial of optimal personalised care after treatment—gynaecological cancer (TOPCAT-G). Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28(2):401–11.
    1. Appleby J, Devlin N, Parkin D. NICE’s cost-effectiveness threshold. BMJ. 2007;335:358–359. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Kanatas A, Ghazali N, Lowe D, Rogers SN. The identification of mood and anxiety concerns using the patients concerns inventory following head and neck cancer. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(4):429–436. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2011.12.021.
    1. Linkhorn H, Pandya H, Ramsaroop R, Wade M, Smith K. Neck lump clinic: a new initiative at North Shore Hospital. ANZ J Surg. 2019;89(7):853–857. doi: 10.1111/ans.15120.
    1. Rogers SN, Semple C, Humphris G, Lowe D, Kanatas A. Using a patient prompt list to raise concerns in oncology clinics does not necessarily lead to longer consultations. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;58(9):1164–1171. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.035.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner