IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i2p253-263.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the Effects of Competition for Constrained Colonoscopy Services with the Introduction of Population-level Colorectal Cancer Screening

Author

Listed:
  • Leslie Anne Campbell
  • John T. Blake
  • George Kephart
  • Eva Grunfeld
  • Donald MacIntosh

Abstract

Background : Median wait times for gastroenterology services in Canada exceed consensus-recommended targets and have worsened substantially over the past decade. Meanwhile, efforts to control colorectal cancer have shifted their focus to screening asymptomatic, average-risk individuals. Along with increasing prevalence of colorectal cancer due to an aging population, screening programs are expected to add substantially to the existing burden on colonoscopy services, and create competition for limited services among individuals of varying risk. Failure to understand the effects of operational programmatic screening decisions may cause unintended harm to both screening participants and higher-risk patients, make inefficient use of limited health care resources, and ultimately hinder a program’s success. Methods : We present a new simulation model (Simulation of Cancer Outcomes for Planning Exercises, or SCOPE) for colorectal cancer screening which, unlike many other colorectal cancer screening models, reflects the effects of competition for limited colonoscopy services between patient groups and can be used to guide planning to ensure adequate resource allocation. We include verification and validation results for the SCOPE model. Results : A discrete event simulation model was developed based on an epidemiological representation of colorectal cancer in a sample population. Colonoscopy service and screening modules were added to allow observation of screening scenarios and resource considerations. The model reproduces population-based data on prevalence of colorectal cancer by stage, and mortality by cause of death, age, and sex, and attendant demand and wait times for colonoscopy services. Conclusions : The study model differs from existing screening models in that it explicitly considers the colonoscopy resource implications of screening activities and the impact of constrained resources on screening effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Leslie Anne Campbell & John T. Blake & George Kephart & Eva Grunfeld & Donald MacIntosh, 2017. "Understanding the Effects of Competition for Constrained Colonoscopy Services with the Introduction of Population-level Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(2), pages 253-263, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:2:p:253-263
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16670638
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X16670638
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X16670638?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan Karnon, 2003. "Alternative decision modelling techniques for the evaluation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 837-848, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lih-Wen Mau & Jaime M. Preussler & Linda J. Burns & Susan Leppke & Navneet S. Majhail & Christa L. Meyer & Tatenda Mupfudze & Wael Saber & Patricia Steinert & David J. Vanness, 2020. "Healthcare Costs of Treating Privately Insured Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia in the United States from 2004 to 2014: A Generalized Additive Modeling Approach," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 515-526, May.
    2. Annemieke Leunis & W. Redekop & Kees van Montfort & Bob Löwenberg & Carin Uyl-de Groot, 2013. "The Development and Validation of a Decision-Analytic Model Representing the Full Disease Course of Acute Myeloid Leukemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(7), pages 605-621, July.
    3. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Jonathan Karnon & Jodi Gray, 2012. "A proposed model for economic evaluations of major depressive disorder," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(4), pages 501-510, August.
    4. Mattias Ekman & Peter Lindgren & Carolin Miltenburger & Genevieve Meier & Julie Locklear & Mary Chatterton, 2012. "Cost Effectiveness of Quetiapine in Patients with Acute Bipolar Depression and in Maintenance Treatment after an Acute Depressive Episode," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 513-530, June.
    5. Olivier Ethgen & Baudouin Standaert, 2012. "Population–versus Cohort–Based Modelling Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 171-181, March.
    6. James A. Hall & Kika Konstantinou & Martyn Lewis & Raymond Oppong & Reuben Ogollah & Sue Jowett, 2019. "Systematic Review of Decision Analytic Modelling in Economic Evaluations of Low Back Pain and Sciatica," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 467-491, August.
    7. An Tran-Duy & Annelies Boonen & Wietske Kievit & Piet Riel & Mart Laar & Johan Severens, 2014. "Modelling Outcomes of Complex Treatment Strategies Following a Clinical Guideline for Treatment Decisions in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 1015-1028, October.
    8. Schulenburg J.-Matthias Graf von der & Vauth Christoph, 2007. "Nach welchen ökonomischen Methoden sollten Gesundheitsleistungen in Deutschland evaluiert werden? / According to Which Economic Methods Should Health Care Services Become Evaluated in Germany?," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 227(5-6), pages 787-806, October.
    9. Matthew J. Glover & Edmund Jones & Katya L. Masconi & Michael J. Sweeting & Simon G. Thompson, 2018. "Discrete Event Simulation for Decision Modeling in Health Care: Lessons from Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(4), pages 439-451, May.
    10. Catherine Lejeune & Kazem Al Zahouri & Marie-Christine Woronoff-Lemsi & Patrick Arveux & Alain Bernard & Christine Binquet & Francis Guillemin, 2005. "Use of a decision analysis model to assess the medicoeconomic implications of FDG PET imaging in diagnosing a solitary pulmonary nodule," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(3), pages 203-214, September.
    11. K Cooper & S C Brailsford & R Davies, 2007. "Choice of modelling technique for evaluating health care interventions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(2), pages 168-176, February.
    12. Beate Jahn & Karl Peter Pfeiffer & Engelbert Theurl & Jean-Eric Tarride & Ron Goeree, 2010. "Capacity Constraints and Cost-Effectiveness: A Discrete Event Simulation for Drug-Eluting Stents," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 16-28, January.
    13. L. B. Standfield & T. A. Comans & P. A. Scuffham, 2017. "An empirical comparison of Markov cohort modeling and discrete event simulation in a capacity-constrained health care setting," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(1), pages 33-47, January.
    14. Lemoine, Coralie & Loubière, Sandrine & Boucekine, Mohamed & Girard, Vincent & Tinland, Aurélie & Auquier, Pascal, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of housing first intervention with an independent housing and team support for homeless people with severe mental illness: A Markov model informed by a randomized controlle," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    15. Jonathan Karnon & Hossein Haji Ali Afzali, 2014. "When to Use Discrete Event Simulation (DES) for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies? A Review and Critique of the Costs and Benefits of DES," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 547-558, June.
    16. John Graves & Shawn Garbett & Zilu Zhou & Jonathan S. Schildcrout & Josh Peterson, 2021. "Comparison of Decision Modeling Approaches for Health Technology and Policy Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(4), pages 453-464, May.
    17. Hareth Al-Janabi & Jenny Coles & John Copping & Nishit Dhanji & Carol McLoughlin & Jacky Murphy & Jean Nicholls, 2021. "Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Economics Methodology Research: Reflections and Recommendations," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 421-427, July.
    18. James O’Mahony & Anthony Newall & Joost Rosmalen, 2015. "Dealing with Time in Health Economic Evaluation: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(12), pages 1255-1268, December.
    19. Jesús Isaac Vázquez-Serrano & Rodrigo E. Peimbert-García & Leopoldo Eduardo Cárdenas-Barrón, 2021. "Discrete-Event Simulation Modeling in Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-20, November.
    20. Ruth A. Lewis & Dyfrig Hughes & Alex J. Sutton & Clare Wilkinson, 2021. "Quantitative Evidence Synthesis Methods for the Assessment of the Effectiveness of Treatment Sequences for Clinical and Economic Decision Making: A Review and Taxonomy of Simplifying Assumptions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 25-61, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:2:p:253-263. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.