4.2 Article

Endometriosis Cost Assessment (the EndoCost Study): A Cost-of-Illness Study Protocol

Journal

GYNECOLOGIC AND OBSTETRIC INVESTIGATION
Volume 71, Issue 3, Pages 170-176

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000316055

Keywords

Endometriosis; Cost of illness; Healthcare cost; Productivity loss; Study protocol

Funding

  1. World Endometriosis Research Foundation (WERF)
  2. Bayer Schering Pharma AG
  3. Takeda Italia Farmaceutici SpA
  4. Pfizer Ltd.
  5. European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: The EndoCost study aims to calculate the costs of endometriosis from a societal perspective. Methods: This multicentre, prevalence-based cost-of-illness analysis aggregates data on endometriosis costs and quality of life from a prospective hospital questionnaire and from both retrospective and prospective patient questionnaires. The EndoCost study comprises 12 representative tertiary care centres involved in the care of women with endometriosis in 10 countries. The sample includes patients with a laparoscopic and/or histological diagnosis of endometriosis and with at least 1 patient contact related to endometriosis during 2008. The EndoCost study measures direct healthcare costs (e.g. costs of medication, physician visits), direct non-healthcare costs (e. g. transportation costs), and indirect costs of productivity loss. Cost questions are developed specifically for the purpose of the EndoCost study. Quality of life is measured using the EuroQol-5D and relevant parts of the Global Study of Women's Health instruments. Both aggregate analyses and country-specific analyses are planned for total costs per patient. Costs are broken down into cost drivers and into the various payers that incur costs. Conclusions: The cost estimates provided by the EndoCost cost-of-illness analysis may be used to justify the prioritisation of future research in endometriosis. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available