Skip to content

Cost-Consequence Analysis Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial of Hospital Versus Telephone Follow-Up after Treatment for Endometrial Cancer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Cost-Consequence Analysis Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial of Hospital Versus Telephone Follow-Up after Treatment for Endometrial Cancer. / Dixon, Padraig; Beaver, Kinta; Williamson, Susan ; Sutton, Chris; Martin-Hirsch, Pierre; Hollingworth, William.

In: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Vol. 16, No. 3, 01.06.2018, p. 415-427.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Dixon, Padraig ; Beaver, Kinta ; Williamson, Susan ; Sutton, Chris ; Martin-Hirsch, Pierre ; Hollingworth, William. / Cost-Consequence Analysis Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial of Hospital Versus Telephone Follow-Up after Treatment for Endometrial Cancer. In: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 2018 ; Vol. 16, No. 3. pp. 415-427.

Bibtex

@article{492e13f5dd49495380fe562a3c4b2038,
title = "Cost-Consequence Analysis Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial of Hospital Versus Telephone Follow-Up after Treatment for Endometrial Cancer",
abstract = "Background: Regular outpatient follow-up programmes are usually offered to patients following treatment for gynaecological and other cancers. Despite the substantial resources involved in providing these programmes, there is evidence that routine follow-up programmes do not affect survival or the likelihood of detecting recurrence and may not meet patient needs. Alternative follow-up modalities may offer the same outcomes at lower cost. We examined the costs of using telephone-based routine follow-up of women treated for endometrial cancer undertaken by specialist gynaecology oncology nurses in comparison to routine hospital-based follow-up. Methods: The ENDCAT trial randomised 259 women at five centres in the north west of England with a known diagnosis of Stage I endometrial cancer who had completed primary treatment on a 1:1 basis to receive either standard hospital outpatient follow-up or a telephone follow-up intervention administered by specialist nurses. A cost-consequence analysis was undertaken in which we compared costs to the health system and to individuals with the trial’s co-primary outcomes of psychological morbidity and participant satisfaction with information received. Results: Psychological morbidity, psychosocial needs, patient satisfaction and quality of life did not differ between arms. Patients randomised to telephone follow-up underwent more and longer consultations. There was no difference in total health service mean per patient costs at 6 months (mean difference £8, 95{\%} percentile confidence interval: − £147 to £141) or 12 months (mean difference: − £77, 95{\%} percentile confidence interval: − £334 to £154). Estimated return journey costs per patient for hospital consultations were £11.47. Productivity costs were approximately twice as high under hospital follow-up. Conclusion: Telephone follow-up was estimated to be cost-neutral for the NHS and may free up clinic time for other patients. There was some evidence that telephone follow-up may be more efficient for patients and wider society, and is not associated with additional psychological morbidity, lower patient satisfaction or reduced quality of life. Trial Registration: ISRCTN: 75220876, prospectively registered 28 October 2011.",
author = "Padraig Dixon and Kinta Beaver and Susan Williamson and Chris Sutton and Pierre Martin-Hirsch and William Hollingworth",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s40258-018-0378-6",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "415--427",
journal = "Applied Health Economics and Health Policy",
issn = "1175-5652",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "3",

}

RIS - suitable for import to EndNote

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-Consequence Analysis Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial of Hospital Versus Telephone Follow-Up after Treatment for Endometrial Cancer

AU - Dixon, Padraig

AU - Beaver, Kinta

AU - Williamson, Susan

AU - Sutton, Chris

AU - Martin-Hirsch, Pierre

AU - Hollingworth, William

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Background: Regular outpatient follow-up programmes are usually offered to patients following treatment for gynaecological and other cancers. Despite the substantial resources involved in providing these programmes, there is evidence that routine follow-up programmes do not affect survival or the likelihood of detecting recurrence and may not meet patient needs. Alternative follow-up modalities may offer the same outcomes at lower cost. We examined the costs of using telephone-based routine follow-up of women treated for endometrial cancer undertaken by specialist gynaecology oncology nurses in comparison to routine hospital-based follow-up. Methods: The ENDCAT trial randomised 259 women at five centres in the north west of England with a known diagnosis of Stage I endometrial cancer who had completed primary treatment on a 1:1 basis to receive either standard hospital outpatient follow-up or a telephone follow-up intervention administered by specialist nurses. A cost-consequence analysis was undertaken in which we compared costs to the health system and to individuals with the trial’s co-primary outcomes of psychological morbidity and participant satisfaction with information received. Results: Psychological morbidity, psychosocial needs, patient satisfaction and quality of life did not differ between arms. Patients randomised to telephone follow-up underwent more and longer consultations. There was no difference in total health service mean per patient costs at 6 months (mean difference £8, 95% percentile confidence interval: − £147 to £141) or 12 months (mean difference: − £77, 95% percentile confidence interval: − £334 to £154). Estimated return journey costs per patient for hospital consultations were £11.47. Productivity costs were approximately twice as high under hospital follow-up. Conclusion: Telephone follow-up was estimated to be cost-neutral for the NHS and may free up clinic time for other patients. There was some evidence that telephone follow-up may be more efficient for patients and wider society, and is not associated with additional psychological morbidity, lower patient satisfaction or reduced quality of life. Trial Registration: ISRCTN: 75220876, prospectively registered 28 October 2011.

AB - Background: Regular outpatient follow-up programmes are usually offered to patients following treatment for gynaecological and other cancers. Despite the substantial resources involved in providing these programmes, there is evidence that routine follow-up programmes do not affect survival or the likelihood of detecting recurrence and may not meet patient needs. Alternative follow-up modalities may offer the same outcomes at lower cost. We examined the costs of using telephone-based routine follow-up of women treated for endometrial cancer undertaken by specialist gynaecology oncology nurses in comparison to routine hospital-based follow-up. Methods: The ENDCAT trial randomised 259 women at five centres in the north west of England with a known diagnosis of Stage I endometrial cancer who had completed primary treatment on a 1:1 basis to receive either standard hospital outpatient follow-up or a telephone follow-up intervention administered by specialist nurses. A cost-consequence analysis was undertaken in which we compared costs to the health system and to individuals with the trial’s co-primary outcomes of psychological morbidity and participant satisfaction with information received. Results: Psychological morbidity, psychosocial needs, patient satisfaction and quality of life did not differ between arms. Patients randomised to telephone follow-up underwent more and longer consultations. There was no difference in total health service mean per patient costs at 6 months (mean difference £8, 95% percentile confidence interval: − £147 to £141) or 12 months (mean difference: − £77, 95% percentile confidence interval: − £334 to £154). Estimated return journey costs per patient for hospital consultations were £11.47. Productivity costs were approximately twice as high under hospital follow-up. Conclusion: Telephone follow-up was estimated to be cost-neutral for the NHS and may free up clinic time for other patients. There was some evidence that telephone follow-up may be more efficient for patients and wider society, and is not associated with additional psychological morbidity, lower patient satisfaction or reduced quality of life. Trial Registration: ISRCTN: 75220876, prospectively registered 28 October 2011.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045279483&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s40258-018-0378-6

DO - 10.1007/s40258-018-0378-6

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 415

EP - 427

JO - Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

T2 - Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

JF - Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

SN - 1175-5652

IS - 3

ER -