4.5 Article

Economic analysis of psychosocial group therapy in women with metastatic breast cancer

期刊

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 100, 期 2, 页码 183-190

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-006-9249-1

关键词

cost-effectiveness; metastatic breast cancer; psychotherapy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Metastatic breast cancer is associated with psychological distress in one-third of patients. We examined the impact of group psychosocial support on health care costs in metastatic breast cancer. Psychosocial interventions have been shown to reduce psychological distress in these patients. In other diseases, depression and anxiety have been associated with higher health care system resource utilization. Methods Data on health care system resources utilization were collected as part of a Canadian multicenter randomized controlled trial of a supportive-expressive group support in metastatic breast cancer. Costs were obtained from one tertiary care hospital in Toronto. A cost minimization analysis was conducted since there was no survival difference; the primary endpoint of the study. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted for mood and pain. Results Total health care utilization costs (including costs of the group therapy intervention) for the intervention and control groups were $31,715 and $28,189, respectively per patient. The difference in total costs between groups ($3,526) was not statistically significant (P = 0.53). The cost-effectiveness analysis for mood showed the intervention group to have an increased cost of $5,550 per patient for an effect size of 0.5 on the POMS scale. The corresponding cost for pain was $4,309. An exploratory analysis on patients who were more distressed at baseline showed a non-significant decrease in cost in favor of the intervention arm (difference of $3,911 P = 0.66). Conclusion Psychosocial intervention, in the form of supportive-expressive group support for metastatic breast cancer, does not lower health care system resource utilization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据