{"id":4669,"date":"2014-04-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-01-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/news.christianacare.org\/2014\/04\/cost-effectiveness-of-a-standard-intervention-versus-a-navigated-intervention-on-colorectal-cancer-screening-use-in-primary-care\/"},"modified":"2014-04-01T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"1970-01-01T00:00:00","slug":"cost-effectiveness-of-a-standard-intervention-versus-a-navigated-intervention-on-colorectal-cancer-screening-use-in-primary-care","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/2014\/04\/01\/cost-effectiveness-of-a-standard-intervention-versus-a-navigated-intervention-on-colorectal-cancer-screening-use-in-primary-care\/","title":{"rendered":"Cost-effectiveness of a standard intervention versus a navigated intervention on colorectal cancer screening use in primary care"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Lairson DR, Dicarlo M, Deshmuk AA, Fagan HB, Sifri R, Katurakes N, Cocroft J, Sendecki J, Swan H, Vernon SW, Myers RE<\/p>\n<p>Cancer 2014 Apr;120(7):1042-9<\/p>\n<p>PMID: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/24435411\" target=\"_blank\">24435411<\/a><\/p>\n<h2>Abstract<\/h2>\n<p><p><strong>BACKGROUND: <\/strong>Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective but underused. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a mailed standard intervention (SI) and tailored navigation interventions (TNIs) to increase CRC screening use in the context of a randomized trial among primary care patients.<\/p>\n<p><strong>METHODS: <\/strong>Participants (n\u2009=\u2009945) were randomized either to a usual care control group (n\u2009=\u2009317), to an SI group (n\u2009=\u2009316), or to a TNI group (n\u2009=\u2009312). The SI group was sent both colonoscopy instructions and stool blood tests irrespective of baseline preference. TNI group participants were sent instructions for scheduling a colonoscopy, a stool blood test, or both based on their test preference, as determined at baseline; then, they received a navigation telephone call. Activity cost estimation was used to determine the cost of each intervention and to compute incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Statistical uncertainty within the base case was assessed with 95% confidence intervals derived from net benefit regression analysis. The effects of uncertain parameters, such as the cost of planning, training, and involvement of those receiving &#8220;investigator salaries,&#8221; were assessed with sensitivity analyses.<\/p>\n<p><strong>RESULTS: <\/strong>Program costs of the SI were $167 per participant. The average cost of the TNI was $289 per participant.<\/p>\n<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: <\/strong>The TNI was more effective than the SI but substantially increased the cost per additional individual screened. Decision-makers need to consider cost structure, level of planning, and training required to implement these 2 intervention strategies and their willingness to pay for additional individuals screened to determine whether a tailored navigation would be justified and feasible. Cancer 2014;120:1042-1049. \u00a9 2013 American Cancer Society.<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Lairson DR, Dicarlo M, Deshmuk AA, Fagan HB, Sifri R, Katurakes N, Cocroft J, Sendecki J, Swan H, Vernon SW, Myers RE Cancer 2014 Apr;120(7):1042-9 PMID: 24435411 Abstract BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective but underused. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a mailed standard intervention (SI) and tailored<\/p>\n<p><a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/2014\/04\/01\/cost-effectiveness-of-a-standard-intervention-versus-a-navigated-intervention-on-colorectal-cancer-screening-use-in-primary-care\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Cost-effectiveness of a standard intervention versus a navigated intervention on colorectal cancer screening use in primary care<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,15,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4669","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cancer","category-medicine","category-pubs-pres"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4669","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4669"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4669\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4669"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4669"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4669"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}