MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413832164 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.9222

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program

2025· article· en· W4413832164 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Alexandra Nuyens, G. Ilie, Ricardo Rendon, Ross Mason, Mohammad Hajizadeh, Prosper Koto, Andrea Kokorovic, Nikhilesh Patil, David Bowes, Greg Bailly, Derek Wilke, Cody MacDonald, Robert David Harold Rutledge

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsDiscovery CentreNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
FundersResearch Nova ScotiaDalhousie UniversityDalhousie Medical Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyDistressCost effectivenessProstate cancerQuality of life (healthcare)CancerInternal medicineNursingClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP), a six-month comprehensive intervention designed to enhance psychological well-being and reduce healthcare expenditures among prostate cancer patients. METHODS: In a crossover randomized clinical trial of 128 men aged 50-82 years scheduled for curative prostate cancer surgery or radiotherapy (± hormone treatment), 66 men received the PC-PEP intervention immediately, while 62 were randomized to a waitlist control arm and received standard care for six months before receiving PC-PEP. The intervention included daily activities targeting physical fitness, pelvic floor training, stress management, intimacy, social support, and dietary guidance. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a healthcare payer perspective using billing data from Nova Scotia's Medical Services Insurance (MSI) and self-reported outcomes. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were calculated using bootstrapped samples. Psychological distress was assessed with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), while quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from SF-6D utility scores. RESULTS: PC-PEP resulted in cost savings of $411.53 CAD per patient at six months, with a 30% reduction in clinically significant psychological distress and a QALY gain of 0.013. At 12 months, savings increased to $660.89 CAD per patient, preventing 31% of distress cases and yielding a QALY gain of 0.034. These outcomes demonstrate that PC-PEP is a dominant intervention, achieving both improved clinical outcomes and reduced healthcare expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: PC-PEP is a dominant, cost-effective strategy that significantly improves psychological well-being while lowering healthcare costs. Early implementation following prostate cancer diagnosis is strongly recommended to maximize both clinical and economic benefits.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→