An Economic Evaluation Supported by Qualitative Data About the Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) versus Standard Treatment Pathway in the Management of Patients with Head and Neck Cancer

V S Ezeofer, Llinos Haf Spencer, Simon Rogers, Anastasios Kanatas, Derek Lowe, Cherith Semple, Jeff Hanna, Seow Tien Yeo, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The head and neck cancer (HNC) Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) is a condition-specific prompt list that allows patients to raise concerns to cancer consultants that otherwise might be overlooked. Objective: This is the first economic evaluation of the PCI in patients with HNC investigating the costs and effects to the health service of not prioritising certain treatment pathways in addition to the primary cancer pathway. Additional costs can be accrued due to delayed referral to other appropriate services, e.g. hospital dentist. Economic evidence could influence future policy direction in this area globally. Methods: Alongside a 3-year clustered randomised controlled trial, an economic evaluation was undertaken with Client Service Receipt Inventory data collected at three different time points (baseline and 6 and 12 months post-baseline). Patients were identified by a multidisciplinary team at the trial clinics. This economic analysis compared the PCI intervention versus the non-PCI treatment pathway. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of the PCI versus non-PCI intervention treatment pathways. Qualitative data were also collected from seven consultants to triangulate findings from the economic evaluation. Results: The analysis used data from 191 patients (66% of the full trial sample). The PCI inventory was low cost, at just over £13 per participant. The PCI intervention was cost effective and also cost saving, with an incremental cost difference of £295.91 over the 12-month follow-up period. The QALY values were higher in the PCI intervention strategy, with a value of 0.79, whereas the non-PCI group had a value of 0.76, thus the PCI intervention was dominant. The sensitivity analysis showed that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, the probability of being cost effective was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80–0.83). Qualitative results showed that consultants using the PCI reported an enhanced awareness of patients’ overall post-treatment needs. Discussion: The PCI provided an effective means to conduct clinical consultations by avoiding unnecessary healthcare costs and focussing on aspects of care most important to patients. The cost per QALY gain was within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline threshold. The economic evaluation showed that the PCI intervention strategy was dominant and therefore cost saving to the national health service (NHS) and was more effective in terms of treatment. Conclusion: The PCI appears to be a low-cost intervention that generates a cost-effective benefit to patients from a NHS perspective if rolled out as part of routine care. Qualitative evidence has shown that the use of the PCI is supported by consultants in routine practice. Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT03086629.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)389-403
Number of pages15
JournalPharmacoEconomics - Open
Volume6
Issue number3
Early online date31 Jan 2022
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 31 Jan 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The authors acknowledge the collaborations between NHS sites with respect to the intellectual property related to the PCI trial. We also thank the patients who participated and the public and patient involvement representatives for their support in submitting the grant application and for their involvement on the steering group. Our thanks also to Dr Catherine Lawrence, reader support for Professor Rhiannon Tudor Edwards. Health and Care Economics Cymru is funded by Welsh Government through Health and Care Research Wales.

Funding Information:
This trial is funded by the RfPB on behalf of the NIHR (PB-PG-0215-36047). This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0215-36047). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Funding Information:
This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0215-36047). The funder was not involved in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Funding Information:
This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).

Keywords

  • head and neck cancer
  • Patient concerns inventory
  • clustered randomised trial
  • economic evaluation
  • qualitative
  • NCT03086629
  • Original Research Article
  • NCT

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'An Economic Evaluation Supported by Qualitative Data About the Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) versus Standard Treatment Pathway in the Management of Patients with Head and Neck Cancer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this