IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v16y2018i3d10.1007_s40258-018-0378-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Consequence Analysis Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial of Hospital Versus Telephone Follow-Up after Treatment for Endometrial Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Padraig Dixon

    (University of Bristol
    University of Bristol)

  • Kinta Beaver

    (University of Central Lancashire)

  • Susan Williamson

    (University of Central Lancashire)

  • Chris Sutton

    (University of Central Lancashire)

  • Pierre Martin-Hirsch

    (University of Central Lancashire
    Lancashire Teaching Hospitals)

  • William Hollingworth

    (University of Bristol)

Abstract

Background Regular outpatient follow-up programmes are usually offered to patients following treatment for gynaecological and other cancers. Despite the substantial resources involved in providing these programmes, there is evidence that routine follow-up programmes do not affect survival or the likelihood of detecting recurrence and may not meet patient needs. Alternative follow-up modalities may offer the same outcomes at lower cost. We examined the costs of using telephone-based routine follow-up of women treated for endometrial cancer undertaken by specialist gynaecology oncology nurses in comparison to routine hospital-based follow-up. Methods The ENDCAT trial randomised 259 women at five centres in the north west of England with a known diagnosis of Stage I endometrial cancer who had completed primary treatment on a 1:1 basis to receive either standard hospital outpatient follow-up or a telephone follow-up intervention administered by specialist nurses. A cost-consequence analysis was undertaken in which we compared costs to the health system and to individuals with the trial’s co-primary outcomes of psychological morbidity and participant satisfaction with information received. Results Psychological morbidity, psychosocial needs, patient satisfaction and quality of life did not differ between arms. Patients randomised to telephone follow-up underwent more and longer consultations. There was no difference in total health service mean per patient costs at 6 months (mean difference £8, 95% percentile confidence interval: − £147 to £141) or 12 months (mean difference: − £77, 95% percentile confidence interval: − £334 to £154). Estimated return journey costs per patient for hospital consultations were £11.47. Productivity costs were approximately twice as high under hospital follow-up. Conclusion Telephone follow-up was estimated to be cost-neutral for the NHS and may free up clinic time for other patients. There was some evidence that telephone follow-up may be more efficient for patients and wider society, and is not associated with additional psychological morbidity, lower patient satisfaction or reduced quality of life. Trial Registration ISRCTN: 75220876, prospectively registered 28 October 2011.

Suggested Citation

  • Padraig Dixon & Kinta Beaver & Susan Williamson & Chris Sutton & Pierre Martin-Hirsch & William Hollingworth, 2018. "Cost-Consequence Analysis Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial of Hospital Versus Telephone Follow-Up after Treatment for Endometrial Cancer," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 415-427, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0378-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-018-0378-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-018-0378-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-018-0378-6?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David Brain & Amarzaya Jadambaa, 2021. "Economic Evaluation of Long-Term Survivorship Care for Cancer Patients in OECD Countries: A Systematic Review for Decision-Makers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-34, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0378-6. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.