MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cost-effectiveness of a survivorship care plan for breast cancer survivors.

2011· article· en· W2591372505 on OpenAlex
Doug Coyle, Eva Grunfeld, K Coyle, Jim A. Julian, Gregory R. Pond, Amy Folkes, Myron Levine

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialBreast cancerSurvivorship curveEconomic evaluationCost effectivenessHealth careCost–benefit analysisFamily medicinePhysical therapyCancerSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6082 Background: Survivorship care plans (SCP) are recommended for patients who have completed primary treatment and are transitioning to routine follow-up care. However, SCPs may be costly and their effectiveness is unproven. The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of a SCP for breast cancer survivors transitioning to routine follow-up care with their own family physician (FP) using data from a recent randomized controlled trial (RCT). Methods: Analysis used resource use and utility data for 408 breast cancer patients enrolled in the RCT. In the intervention group, patients received a SCP consisting of: a 30-minute educational session with a nurse who reviewed a treatment summary, a patient-version of follow-up guidelines, brochures and information about local relevant supportive care resources; whilst FPs of intervention patients received a copy of all documents plus the full guideline and a reminder table of recommended follow-up visits and tests. Analysis assessed the societal costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for both groups over the two year follow up of the RCT. Health care resources including physician visits and laboratory tests were weighted by appropriate Canadian unit costs. Analysis also considered costs to patients including travel and lost productivity assessed by the friction cost method. QALYs were assessed using the EQ5D questionnaire. Uncertainty concerning cost effectiveness was assessed through non parametric bootstrapping and deterministic sensitivity analysis. Results: The SCP was estimated to cost $59.96 per patient or $1.32 million per year in Canada given breast cancer incidence. The control group dominated the intervention group: as total costs per patient were lower for the control group ($736 versus $789) and total QALYs were higher (1.42 versus 1.41). The probability that the SCP was cost effective was 27% at a threshold value of a QALY of $50,000. Sensitivity analyses adopting a health care system perspective, using the human capital approach and including the cost of recurrences did not change the conclusions of the analysis. Conclusions: Based on the findings of this trial, SCPs would be costly to introduce and would not be cost effective.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.371
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.129 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it