Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Economic consequences of near-patient test results - the case of tests for the Helicobacter Pylori bacterium in dyspepsia

Contents:

Author Info

  • Fauli, Siri

    ()
    (The Norwegian Medical Association)

  • Thue, Geir

    (Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Abstract Diagnostic tests and in particular laboratory tests are often important in diagnostic work-up and monitoring of patients. Therefore the economic consequences of medical actions based on test results may amount to a substantial proportion of health service costs. Thus, it is of public interest to study the consequences and costs of using laboratory tests. We develop a model for economic evaluation related to the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of near patient tests. Blood sample based tests to detect the bacterium Helicobacter Pylori (HP) are useful in diagnosing peptic ulcer and suitable to illustrate the model. First, general practitioners’ initial management plans for a dyspeptic patient are elucidated using a paper vignette survey. Based on survey results, and medical literature, a decision tree is constructed to visualize expected costs and outcomes resulting from using three different HP tests in the clinical situation described in the vignette. Tests included are two rapid tests for use in general practice, and one hospital laboratory test for comparison. The tests had different sensitivities and specificities. Then a costeffectiveness analysis is undertaken from a societal perspective. Finally we use sensitivity analyses to model the decision uncertainty. Estimating for a follow-up period of 120 days, the rapid test with lower sensitivity and specificity than the hospital HP test is cost-effective because the laboratory result is available immediately. Further, in general practice, the rapid test with the highest sensitivity is significantly cost effective compared to the test with the highest specificity when the willingness to pay for each dyspepsia-free day exceeds €42.6. When deciding whether a laboratory analysis should be analysed in the office laboratory or not, it is important to consider both the diagnostic accuracy of the tests and the waiting time for the alternative, i.e. a hospital laboratory result.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.hero.uio.no/publicat/2007/HERO2007_7.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme in its series HERO On line Working Paper Series with number 2007:7.

    as in new window
    Length: 65 pages
    Date of creation: 03 Jun 2009
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:hhs:oslohe:2007_007

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: HERO / Institute of Health Management and Health Economics P.O. Box 1089 Blindern, N-0317 Oslo, Norway
    Phone: 2307 5309
    Fax: 2307 5310
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.hero.uio.no/eng.html
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: cost-effectiveness; laboratory tests; general practice; probabilistic sensitivity; analysis;

    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:oslohe:2007_007. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Anbjørg Kolaas).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.