scholarly journals The efficacy and cost‐effectiveness of patient navigation programs across the cancer continuum: A systematic review

Cancer ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brittany M. Bernardo ◽  
Xiaochen Zhang ◽  
Chloe M. Beverly Hery ◽  
Rachel J. Meadows ◽  
Electra D. Paskett
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Patient Navigation

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of patient navigation for lung cancer – a systematic review

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 314
Author(s):  
Benjamin Kass ◽  
Christina Dornquast ◽  
Nina Rieckmann ◽  
Ute Goerling ◽  
Christine Holmberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Patient Navigation ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
Lung Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Research Gap ◽  
The Cost

Background: Patient navigation (PN) programs have been shown to increase patient satisfaction and quality of life among patients with lung cancer and to decrease time to treatment. However, the general cost-effectiveness of such programs in the context of lung cancer remains unknown. Hence, the aim of the present systematic review was to analyze the scientific literature and quantitatively assess the level of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of PN programs for patients diagnosed with lung cancer.  Methods: A systematic literature search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases without time limitations. Randomized controlled trials written in English or German were eligible for inclusion if any results regarding the cost-effectiveness of personally delivered PN programs for patients after lung cancer diagnosis were reported. A manual search was carried out to supplement the systematic search. Additionally, the authors of ongoing or unpublished relevant research were contacted. The titles, abstracts and full texts of relevant citations were screened independently by two reviewers.   Results: The initial search yielded 814 articles, including four papers identified manually. Twenty-one articles were included in the full text screening. However, no study met the inclusion criteria. Contacting the authors of ongoing or unpublished research and cross-cancer studies did not yield any studies that met the inclusion criteria.   Conclusion: Since no study met the inclusion criteria, this study reveals a research gap in this area. Furthermore, no conclusive statement regarding the cost-effectiveness of patient navigation programs for patients diagnosed with lung cancer can be made. Since the implementation of new healthcare models such as PN at least partially depends on their cost-effectiveness, future attempts to evaluate PN programs for lung cancer patients should consider examining outcomes related to cost-effectiveness to overcome the identified research gap.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of patient navigation for lung cancer – a systematic review

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 314
Author(s):  
Benjamin Kass ◽  
Christina Dornquast ◽  
Nina Rieckmann ◽  
Ute Goerling ◽  
Christine Holmberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Patient Navigation ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
Lung Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Research Gap ◽  
The Cost

Background: Patient navigation (PN) programs have been shown to increase patient satisfaction and quality of life among patients with lung cancer and to decrease time to treatment. However, the general cost-effectiveness of such programs in the context of lung cancer remains unknown. Hence, the aim of the present systematic review was to analyze the scientific literature and quantitatively assess the level of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of PN programs for patients diagnosed with lung cancer.  Methods: A systematic literature search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases without time limitations. Randomized controlled trials written in English or German were eligible for inclusion if any results regarding the cost-effectiveness of personally delivered PN programs for patients after lung cancer diagnosis were reported. A manual search was carried out to supplement the systematic search. Additionally, the authors of ongoing or unpublished relevant research were contacted. The titles, abstracts and full texts of relevant citations were screened independently by two reviewers.   Results: The initial search yielded 814 articles, including four papers identified manually. Twenty-one articles were included in the full text screening. However, no study met the inclusion criteria. Contacting the authors of ongoing or unpublished research and cross-cancer studies did not yield any studies that met the inclusion criteria.   Conclusion: Since no study met the inclusion criteria, this study reveals a research gap in this area. Furthermore, no conclusive statement regarding the cost-effectiveness of patient navigation programs for patients diagnosed with lung cancer can be made. Since the implementation of new healthcare models such as PN at least partially depends on their cost-effectiveness, future attempts to evaluate PN programs for lung cancer patients should consider examining outcomes related to cost-effectiveness to overcome the identified research gap.

scholarly journals Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures in melanoma clinical quality registries: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e040751
Author(s):  
Zachary Blood ◽  
Anh Tran ◽  
Lauren Caleo ◽  
Robyn Saw ◽  
Mbathio Dieng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Cutaneous Melanoma ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Clinical Quality ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Eortc Qlq

ObjectivesTo identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in clinical quality registries, for people with cutaneous melanoma, to inform a new Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry; and describe opportunities and challenges of routine PROM/PREM collection, especially in primary care.DesignSystematic review.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWhich PROMs and PREMs are used in clinical quality registries for people with cutaneous melanoma, how they are collected, frequency of collection, participant recruitment methods and funding models for each registry.Results1134 studies were identified from MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects databases and TUFTS Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, alongside grey literature, from database inception to 5th February 2020. Following screening, 14 studies were included, identifying four relevant registries: Dutch Melanoma Registry, Adelphi Real-World Disease-Specific Programme (Melanoma), Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship Registry, and Cancer Experience Registry. These used seven PROMs: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Functional Assessment of Cancer-General (FACT-G) and FACT-Melanoma (FACT-M), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Fatigue Assessment Scale Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System-29 and one PREM; EORTC QLQ-Information Module 26. PROMs/PREMs in registries were reported to improve transparency of care; facilitate clinical auditing for quality assessment; enable cost-effectiveness analyses and create large-scale research platforms. Challenges included resource burden for data entry and potential collection bias toward younger, more affluent respondents. Feedback from patients with melanoma highlighted the relevance of PROMs/PREMs in assessing patient outcomes and patient experiences.ConclusionsClinical registries indicate PROMs/PREMs for melanoma care can be incorporated and address important gaps, however cost and collection bias may limit generalisability.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018086737.

scholarly journals Decision support tools to improve cancer diagnostic decision making in primary care: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (689) ◽  
pp. e809-e818 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Chima ◽  
Jeanette C Reece ◽  
Kristi Milley ◽  
Shakira Milton ◽  
Jennifer G McIntosh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Decision Support Tools ◽  
Diagnostic Decision ◽  
Support Tools ◽  
Diagnostic Decision Making

BackgroundThe diagnosis of cancer in primary care is complex and challenging. Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDSTs) have been proposed as an approach to improve GP decision making, but no systematic review has examined their role in cancer diagnosis.AimTo investigate whether eCDSTs improve diagnostic decision making for cancer in primary care and to determine which elements influence successful implementation.Design and settingA systematic review of relevant studies conducted worldwide and published in English between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2018.MethodPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and a consultation of reference lists and citation tracking was carried out. Exclusion criteria included the absence of eCDSTs used in asymptomatic populations, and studies that did not involve support delivered to the GP. The most relevant Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were applied according to study design of the included paper.ResultsOf the nine studies included, three showed improvements in decision making for cancer diagnosis, three demonstrated positive effects on secondary clinical or health service outcomes such as prescribing, quality of referrals, or cost-effectiveness, and one study found a reduction in time to cancer diagnosis. Barriers to implementation included trust, the compatibility of eCDST recommendations with the GP’s role as a gatekeeper, and impact on workflow.ConclusioneCDSTs have the capacity to improve decision making for a cancer diagnosis, but the optimal mode of delivery remains unclear. Although such tools could assist GPs in the future, further well-designed trials of all eCDSTs are needed to determine their cost-effectiveness and the most appropriate implementation methods.

scholarly journals Incremental Net Monetary Benefit of Bariatric Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness Evidences

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prapaporn Noparatayaporn ◽  
Montarat Thavorncharoensap ◽  
Usa Chaikledkaew ◽  
Bhavani Shankara Bagepally ◽  
Ammarin Thakkinstian
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bariatric Surgery ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Evaluation Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Diabetes Group ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Full Economic Evaluation

AbstractThis systematic review aimed to comprehensively synthesize cost-effectiveness evidences of bariatric surgery by pooling incremental net monetary benefits (INB). Twenty-eight full economic evaluation studies comparing bariatric surgery with usual care were identified from five databases. In high-income countries (HICs), bariatric surgery was cost-effective among mixed obesity group (i.e., obesity with/without diabetes) over a 10-year time horizon (pooled INB = $53,063.69; 95% CI $42,647.96, $63,479.43) and lifetime horizon (pooled INB = $101,897.96; 95% CI $79,390.93, $124,404.99). All studies conducted among obese with diabetes reported that bariatric surgery was cost-effective. Also, the pooled INB for obesity with diabetes group over lifetime horizon in HICs was $80,826.28 (95% CI $32,500.75, $129,151.81). Nevertheless, no evidence is available in low- and middle-income countries. Graphical abstract

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document